You yanks are all bleating on about how bad this is and how high these figures are. What makes you think your own government is being any less nosy about your affairs?
Because I encrypt my email... Learn how to secure *your* email on Mac OS X 10.3+ and Windows.
Yeah, but "Google Complies With The Law" doesn't make as good a headline...
It works just fine when they are handing over dissidents to Chinese authorities, doesn't it? When it's an American dissident though, it's no longer acceptable. Doublethink. Got it!
Without aqueous chemistry, carbon dioxide couldn't turn into carbonates and stayed in the atmosphere.
Ahhh, so that's why all that limestone looks like fossilized plankton... aqueous chemistry... Got it! Good thing that aqueous chemistry locked up all that C in 66,000,000 gigatons of limestone and dolomite and that life on earth only locked up a paltry amount in 4000 gigatons of fossil fuels. (Source) Man, if only there were some way to get life on earth to get with the program and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, we could counteract any effect CO2 might have by removing it from the atmosphere completely... If only there were some government study or something to show us how!
Oh well, on to plan B. We should we should cease use of the internal combustion engine and shut down all power plants that utilize fossil fuels in the production of electricity. At least that stops adding CO2 to the atmosphere, even though it does nothing to remove the CO2 there and completely handicaps modern society in a multitude of ways. Brilliant plan! Let's begin immediately.
He didn't resign due to a feeling of responsibility for his actions. He resigned from Cartoon Network because Comedy Central recognized his marketing brilliance and offered him more money. Coming soon to a city near you: blinkin' Cartman flipping you the bird terrorist signage. The new CEO of Comedy Central would appreciate it if you would all flip out completely... again.;-)
No, actually, GP is right. The people offering the "Prize" are just cheap. Tell ya what, I'll offer a prize of $25 to anyone who can produce a Lamborghini for me and leave the vehicle with title and a big red bow in my driveway. What? No takers??
PS. The problem was solved quite a while ago. So take your $25 million and go lobby congress for some pollution credit trading scheme that doubles your price at the pump and pays for ocean fertilization. Next!
Cops CAN follow people around 24 hours a day 7 days a week for months on end without a warrant. In fact, they DO. Or do you somehow think that taking down the mob bosses happened in just a few days? There is no fallacy of "composition" at all here.
Have the cops ever taken down a mob boss without a warrant? No, I didn't think so.
Gonzales would be permitted to force Internet providers to keep logs of Web browsing, instant message exchanges, or e-mail conversations indefinitely.
Other than email, I'd be really surprised if most ISPs logged anything in the first place. As for email... nothing has ever protected you there unless you use encryption. Learn how to secure your email for Mac OS X 10.3+ and Windows.
In short, that statement would be a lot scarier if the word "indefinitely" were omitted.
The monitoring you are afraid of isn't practicle with the technology put into practice
Wrong. Thumb drives and GPS units are a whole lot less expensive than a $40,000 police cruiser and a $45,000 a year cop. You can pull it off to the tune of a few hundred bucks. Scrap one car and two cops from the budget and monitor thousands of citizens for the same price.
-- they have to be able to retrieve the device after planting it, which isn't possible in the "random placement" scenarios you are so afraid of (as they don't have a known location to retreive the device).
Yeah, it's not like they have a database that correlates something like a "license tag" to a physical address. The cops wouldn't even know where to begin searching for the vehicle so they could retrieve the planted thumb drive on it. <sarcasm/>
The fact that technology enables them to be better at tracking a suspect is irrelevant -- they're not gathering information that they couldn't obtain in some other fashion.
How they follow you is mostly beside the point, but it is not totally irrelevant.
Arguing that the police should have efficiency constraints is not a valid justification for requiring a warrant.
You took three paragraphs to get to your actual point? You must love to hear yourself talk. I'm ok with them using new technology all they want... with a warrant. You obviously don't care. The government's argument is "Cops sometimes follow people around in their cars without a warrant and that's ok, so cops following people around 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months on end without a warrant is ok too." That's a fallacy of composition and the judge just bought it hook, line, and sinker. We'll if it's ok for the cops, it must be ok for me too. I can go make a cheap rig and stalk anyone I want legally, because hey, it's not like I couldn't legally follow the person around in my car.
YouTube and Google are not supposed to demand proof. The DMCA is very specific: The party who believes their copyright has been infringed must send a signed statement stating that the copyright is theirs, under penalty of perjury. Once that has happened, the ISP must take down the content if they don't want to risk being held liable for having the content.
When the claim is obviously BS, YouTube and Google could tell Viacom to stuff it and they have nothing to worry about.
Failing to act in response to a DMCA takedown letter is not against the law. "They can always choose not to take advantage of the safe harbor," Seltzer said. However, only by complying with the letter and taking pages out of their index can Google escape a possible copyright infringement lawsuit.
If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material.
Nice straw man there dickhead. No, I'm presenting the fact that it would be much easier for the police to do what the judge warned against using this methodology. This is nothing like a policeman tailing you in a traditional fashion. It could be placed on your vehicle and log your location for months on end. How the hell is that like a policeman following you in his car? Right, it isn't. Is it feasible for the police to 'tail' you for months on end for no reason? It is now not only feasible, and cheap, but thanks to the asswipe judge, completely legal without a warrant.
It will be amusing when some politically motivated cop decides to plant one of these little bugs on a politician's car. It'll be fun hearing about midnight visits to the redlight districts just before an election. Consequently, the legislature's first order of business after that election will be to outlaw this practice in bold face black letter language in the law books. The problem is they will probably only outlaw the practice in regards to "government officials" or some such and leave the citizenry out in the cold.
After all, is it that much different (other than cost to the police) from tailing a person in an unmarked police vehicle?
Yeah, actually it's a lot different. A car and a policeman or two is a whole lot more expensive than a gps tracking unit and a thumb drive. You also have the benefit of being able to see that someone is following you whether you know it is a policeman or not.
He probably ruined his case by going on the run, as I can't believe that a higher court would not have overturned the decision on appeal.
I think it should go a little further than that... I think the law is ripe for abuse by those who would stifle free speech in the name of copyright and should therefore be overturned entirely.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Those of you may recognize that very clear language as the US Constitution, Amendment 1. As this story indicates, it is trumped by Article 1, Section 8 of that same document...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Hmmm, the language isn't so clear there. I mean, I pretty clearly see "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," but what I don't see is where in Article 1, Section 8 Congress manages to secure for limited times without... making a law to do so. But hey, I just know how to read... it isn't like I'm a constitutional lawyer or anything. Ok, so you guys probably recognized those two. Does anyone recognize these words?
Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
I guess I'd need to be a Chinese constitutional lawyer to reconcile those words with the actual conduct of the government too....
Thanks AC. Yes, my head has been way up there regarding mobile phones. I've only gotten one of them in the past year and was highly disappointed that my Linux phone was off limits for developing native apps.
And I'm not talking Java MIDP. I want a phone, I want wi-fi on it, and I want to write native apps for it. No such thing exists or has even been announced to my knowledge.
You can't claim victory when you've made very deliberate predictions that temperatures will go up, and then refine those predictions (still going up but in a narrower range), if temperatures actually go down.
Let me draw a parallel: Sulfate aerosols. Twenty years ago... BAD! Spend five billion dollars on a five million dollar problem by requiring major changes to industry by amending the clean air act. Now, twenty years later, the same environmental crowd that fought against sulfates so vigorously tell us sulfate aerosols are keeping global temperatures down and should be intentionally put into the atmosphere. Keep in mind, they don't want to lift clean air act restrictions. They want to spend more money (pocket more grants) seeding it with jet airplanes, balloons and artillery cannons... I still haven't heard how this is supposed to avoid the production of acid rain, but there it is, staring you in the face. Twenty years ago, you would have told me to stuff my sulfate conspiracy theories too, I suppose.
So you say a temperature switcheroo in a few decades is impossible? Suppose they just throw up a two or three page "debunking" over at realclimate and continue on their merry way. Would that pass your sniff test? They are simply trying to scare up power and support, just like George W Bush does with the terrorism rhetoric. Remember, the whole sulfate aerosol business started in 1995 when the IPCC's prediction of 1.3C-2.3C temperature increase only turned out to be about a 0.5C increase.
By 1995, in its second full assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of the critics' position: `When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account, most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity to the greenhouse effect is used. There is growing evidences that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.'
Let me translate this statement. It means either it is not going to warm up as much as we said it would or something is hiding the warming. I predict that every attempt will be made to demonstrate the latter before admitting that the former is true.
Well, many companies will control what can be published from the research they pay for, but when it comes to the government, that is not the case at all.
Naive today, aren't we? Government can choose to suppress research in a number of ways. Either through 'censorship' (see above), or lack of funding entirely as is the case with embryonic stem cell research.
In the case linked to above, the cult of global warming calls foul because the Bush administration decided to tone down the cultists' language. Not change their findings mind you... simply take out the inflammatory language. And that makes the cultists sad.
Worth noting: King George is not alone on the phrase "global warming." Even the fine gentlemen over at realclimate.org don't want you calling it "global warming" any more. They prefer "anthropogenic climate change" now. That way, they can claim victory regardless of the direction temperatures actually go...
Sea levels are falling in the arctic? It must be anthropogenic climate change. Ice getting thicker in Greenland? Yet more anthropogenic climate change! Temperatures falling in Greenland? ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE!! Woohoo! This is great! It works for hot AND cold! Awesome!! I wish we'd thought of this five dollar word for 'man-made' sooner! Tell all the troops to discontinue the use of 'global warming' and start using 'anthropogenic climate change' as soon as possible.
Oh great, the sworn enemy of the cult of global warming tries to fund a study and now they're bribing people according to slashdot editorialization. This gets so old. It's like talking to a wall.
I haven't seen anyone discredit this panel or this document yet.
Really? Given the document came out today, that might be a bit difficult. As for the panel... You must have missed the bitch slapping they got back in 1997 by Dr. Patrick J Michaels in front of congress. He the former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and has a Ph.D. in Ecological Climatology. But screw those credentials, I'm sure we can classify him as a shill if you will allow me to quote him...
In science, regardless of how much external political and social pressure is applied, it is inevitable that the observed data and theoretical hypotheses or models, if you will, will eventually reach an internally consistent equilibrium. This is happening today.
However, it was apparent that when the first so-called consensus was imposed upon the issue of global warming by the First Scientific Assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, such an equilibrium had not been reached.
That report in 1990 stated, `When the latest atmospheric models are run with the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, their simulation of climate is generally realistic on large scales.'
The suite of climate models extant at that time predicted that the globe's mean temperature should have risen by then between 1.3 and 2.3 degrees Celsius. Slightly revised versions of these models provided the technical background for the Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in 1992.
The observed warming since the late 19th Century has only been 0.5 degrees Celsius, or less than one-third of the predicted value. Critics argued, as I did before this committee, that there would have to be a dramatic reduction in the forecast of future warming in order to reconcile the facts and the hypotheses.
By 1995, in its second full assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of the critics' position: `When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account, most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity to the greenhouse effect is used. There is growing evidences that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.'
Let me translate this statement. It means either it is not going to warm up as much as we said it would or something is hiding the warming. I predict that every attempt will be made to demonstrate the latter before admitting that the former is true.
Such attempts were made, and initial results, particularly those published in `Nature' on July 4, 1996, appeared initially to bolster the argument that the sulfates were masking the expected warming. That particular study used weather balloon data from 1963 through 1987. Most striking was a warming of the middle of the Southern Hemisphere, which you can see in the top of the figure on page 3. There is a box around this dramatic warming region. It contributed most to the apparent reality of the sulfate-greenhouse effect interaction.
However, when the entire set of weather balloon data from 1958 through 1995, rather than what was used in the paper was used, this most pronounced region of warming shows no change whatsoever.
In the figure that I am referring to here on page 3, the closed circles, the filled circles, are the data that were used in the 1963 through 1987 study and all the circles are all the data.
In response to this, the senior author of that paper told the December meeting of the American Geophysical Union that the correspondence failed because greenhouse warming had overwhelmed the cooling effect of sulfates since 1987.
As you can see from Figure 1, there was no net change in temperature in the last decade. So this statement was clearly wrong.
The existence of current warming, and man's contribution to it, is not however in doubt.
I guess reading comprehension wasn't one of your strong points. Or maybe math... You don't even have to read the linked articles to see that you're full of shit. The submission itself quotes, 'there is a 90% chance humans are responsible for climate change.' And that's straight from the cult of global warming. I was modded higher than you, and I'm defending an unpopular viewpoint... that should tell you something.
Climate isn't correlated with absolute concentrations of CO2, because of all of the other climate factors in effect. Changes in climate are correlated with changes in CO2... The evidence suggests that a drop in CO2 precipitated the ice age, and a rise in CO2 may have ended it.
Damn, you contradict yourself in the same paragraph... GWB, is that you? No, it suggested that a drop in CO2 coincided with an ice age. You and your religious leaders are confusing correlation with causation. CO2 was around 4400 PPM at that time. Compared that to our 370 PPM. Yet we receive dire predictions that if CO2 rises to 400, 500, 600, etc. that the poles are going to melt and coastal cities will be inundated. If you had even bothered to read what I provided for you, you would have seen that having a large polar land mass and a continent that stretches between the poles as we have today is an essential ingredient to ice ages. The only man-made activity that might change that is the Panama canal.
Micahels' analysis was, shall we say, dodgy at best.
You cannot possibly be suggesting that a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales knows more about the climate than a research professor and State Climatologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Oh wait, you are. Pardon me, but if given nothing but the opinions of Mr. Tim Lambert and DR. Patrick J. Michaels, I think I would go with the person who had devoted his entire fucking life to studying the environment in favor of some dipshit with a CS degree who apparently spends most of his time blogging. You have got to be fucking kidding me? Is there no limit to how far your blinders extend?
McKitrick & McIntyre's analysis is also not without its flaws
Put in random data, still get a hockey stick. I don't need an 18 page rebuttal from the shills at realclimate.org to tell me the sky is green when I can see it for myself with my own two eyes.
Given the rest of your post, I can see your global warming religion is waaaaay more important to you than reality, so it's kinda pointless to even try to argue with you. I'll just leave it at that. Have a nice day, don't let the sky fall on you.
Thanks, but I'd rather you didn't.-- Jim Gaffigan.
I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that no-one in government is gonna do anything about this until high tides start rolling in over coastal capital cities and hundreds of millions of people are displaced.
Where did you read that? Oh yeah, the linked article from the Christian science monitor... The cult of global warmers should fit right in there... Still preaching fire and brimstone, eh?;-)
Pssst!.... don't tell anyone but none of them ever had irrefutable proof.
I think Pasteur had pretty irrefutable proof. They had microscopes. They knew what caused the problem. All he had to do was convince religious freaks that bacteria didn't spontaneously appear out of nowhere by an act of God. But if you feel bacteria spontaneously generate themselves out of nothing but component pieces, feel free to drink unpasteurized milk and scoff at the rest of us for being just as susceptible to disease as yourself.
I don't think science is what you seem to think it is.
Given that brief synopsis, I can see a person might be skeptical. Especially when the people predicting the end of the world are asking for taxpayer dollars to do it.
What's not working as designed, is that politicians are not taking seriously (or worse) scientists.
Gee... you coulda fooled me. I guess that's why politicians are funding this bullshit in the first place. Don't forget: A number of these "climatologists" are on welfare. They don't study without government grants.
<sarcasm> Of course, these climatologists would never have any motivation to blow things out of proportion. Nor would the media reporting it. "More research is required" definitely brings in the ratings and the grant money a lot better than "End of the world approaching! News at 11!!" </sarcasm>
Hillary's record from ontheissues.org
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 5, Informative
You seem pretty dense, so I'll spell it out for you. There is an upper limit to how much heat your CO2 blanket can catch. When CO2 was at 7000 PPM (compared to our current 370PPM), the global mean temp was only 22C. 22C is pretty much the highest it has ever gotten in the past 500,000,000 years or so. I'm pretty sure mankind could survive at 22C. It would be different, but mass extinction of the human race doesn't seem likely. Take your warm-blooded mammal-planet straw man elsewhere. Thanks.
CO2 levels are not the only control on global temperature. To assume such is asinine.
Hey, there's a concept we can both agree with!
However, in similar conditions, we might expect similar results.
Notice in your link that compares the Scotese global temperature scale to the Berner CO2 levels... that the last time that both were at minimal levels was during the Permian.
The Permian ended with a coincidental increase in both global temperature and CO2 levels, according to your data.
Yeah, I also notice that the author points out that ice ages occur whenever a) we have land masses that extend from our north to south pole AND b) a large south polar land mass... Could it be that one such land mass broke up due to continental drift at just about that time?! Hey, don't bother yourself with reading or examining evidence. Just look at one graph, assume it was the CO2, and contradict the first words that came out of your mouth.
THE LAST TIME THE EARTH HAD LOW TEMPERATURES AND LOW CO2, and CO2 LEVELS ROSE, ALMOST EVERYTHING DIED.
Tell me about it when 'runaway' plate techtonics splits up the Isthmus of Panama.
Slashdot Mirror
You yanks are all bleating on about how bad this is and how high these figures are. What makes you think your own government is being any less nosy about your affairs?
Because I encrypt my email... Learn how to secure *your* email on Mac OS X 10.3+ and Windows.
Yeah, but "Google Complies With The Law" doesn't make as good a headline...
It works just fine when they are handing over dissidents to Chinese authorities, doesn't it? When it's an American dissident though, it's no longer acceptable. Doublethink. Got it!
Without aqueous chemistry, carbon dioxide couldn't turn into carbonates and stayed in the atmosphere.
Ahhh, so that's why all that limestone looks like fossilized plankton... aqueous chemistry... Got it! Good thing that aqueous chemistry locked up all that C in 66,000,000 gigatons of limestone and dolomite and that life on earth only locked up a paltry amount in 4000 gigatons of fossil fuels. (Source) Man, if only there were some way to get life on earth to get with the program and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, we could counteract any effect CO2 might have by removing it from the atmosphere completely... If only there were some government study or something to show us how!
Oh well, on to plan B. We should we should cease use of the internal combustion engine and shut down all power plants that utilize fossil fuels in the production of electricity. At least that stops adding CO2 to the atmosphere, even though it does nothing to remove the CO2 there and completely handicaps modern society in a multitude of ways. Brilliant plan! Let's begin immediately.
It was Cartoon Network, not Comedy Central.
He didn't resign due to a feeling of responsibility for his actions. He resigned from Cartoon Network because Comedy Central recognized his marketing brilliance and offered him more money. Coming soon to a city near you: blinkin' Cartman flipping you the bird terrorist signage. The new CEO of Comedy Central would appreciate it if you would all flip out completely... again. ;-)
No, actually, GP is right. The people offering the "Prize" are just cheap. Tell ya what, I'll offer a prize of $25 to anyone who can produce a Lamborghini for me and leave the vehicle with title and a big red bow in my driveway. What? No takers??
PS. The problem was solved quite a while ago. So take your $25 million and go lobby congress for some pollution credit trading scheme that doubles your price at the pump and pays for ocean fertilization. Next!
Cops CAN follow people around 24 hours a day 7 days a week for months on end without a warrant. In fact, they DO. Or do you somehow think that taking down the mob bosses happened in just a few days? There is no fallacy of "composition" at all here.
Have the cops ever taken down a mob boss without a warrant? No, I didn't think so.
Gonzales would be permitted to force Internet providers to keep logs of Web browsing, instant message exchanges, or e-mail conversations indefinitely.
Other than email, I'd be really surprised if most ISPs logged anything in the first place. As for email... nothing has ever protected you there unless you use encryption. Learn how to secure your email for Mac OS X 10.3+ and Windows.
In short, that statement would be a lot scarier if the word "indefinitely" were omitted.
The monitoring you are afraid of isn't practicle with the technology put into practice
Wrong. Thumb drives and GPS units are a whole lot less expensive than a $40,000 police cruiser and a $45,000 a year cop. You can pull it off to the tune of a few hundred bucks. Scrap one car and two cops from the budget and monitor thousands of citizens for the same price.
-- they have to be able to retrieve the device after planting it, which isn't possible in the "random placement" scenarios you are so afraid of (as they don't have a known location to retreive the device).
Yeah, it's not like they have a database that correlates something like a "license tag" to a physical address. The cops wouldn't even know where to begin searching for the vehicle so they could retrieve the planted thumb drive on it. <sarcasm />
The fact that technology enables them to be better at tracking a suspect is irrelevant -- they're not gathering information that they couldn't obtain in some other fashion.
How they follow you is mostly beside the point, but it is not totally irrelevant.
Arguing that the police should have efficiency constraints is not a valid justification for requiring a warrant.
You took three paragraphs to get to your actual point? You must love to hear yourself talk. I'm ok with them using new technology all they want... with a warrant. You obviously don't care. The government's argument is "Cops sometimes follow people around in their cars without a warrant and that's ok, so cops following people around 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months on end without a warrant is ok too." That's a fallacy of composition and the judge just bought it hook, line, and sinker. We'll if it's ok for the cops, it must be ok for me too. I can go make a cheap rig and stalk anyone I want legally, because hey, it's not like I couldn't legally follow the person around in my car.
YouTube and Google are not supposed to demand proof. The DMCA is very specific: The party who believes their copyright has been infringed must send a signed statement stating that the copyright is theirs, under penalty of perjury. Once that has happened, the ISP must take down the content if they don't want to risk being held liable for having the content.
When the claim is obviously BS, YouTube and Google could tell Viacom to stuff it and they have nothing to worry about.
Also of interest, DMCA Counter Notifications:Nice straw man there dickhead. No, I'm presenting the fact that it would be much easier for the police to do what the judge warned against using this methodology. This is nothing like a policeman tailing you in a traditional fashion. It could be placed on your vehicle and log your location for months on end. How the hell is that like a policeman following you in his car? Right, it isn't. Is it feasible for the police to 'tail' you for months on end for no reason? It is now not only feasible, and cheap, but thanks to the asswipe judge, completely legal without a warrant.
It will be amusing when some politically motivated cop decides to plant one of these little bugs on a politician's car. It'll be fun hearing about midnight visits to the redlight districts just before an election. Consequently, the legislature's first order of business after that election will be to outlaw this practice in bold face black letter language in the law books. The problem is they will probably only outlaw the practice in regards to "government officials" or some such and leave the citizenry out in the cold.
After all, is it that much different (other than cost to the police) from tailing a person in an unmarked police vehicle?
Yeah, actually it's a lot different. A car and a policeman or two is a whole lot more expensive than a gps tracking unit and a thumb drive. You also have the benefit of being able to see that someone is following you whether you know it is a policeman or not.
He probably ruined his case by going on the run, as I can't believe that a higher court would not have overturned the decision on appeal.
I think it should go a little further than that... I think the law is ripe for abuse by those who would stifle free speech in the name of copyright and should therefore be overturned entirely.
Those of you may recognize that very clear language as the US Constitution, Amendment 1. As this story indicates, it is trumped by Article 1, Section 8 of that same document...
Hmmm, the language isn't so clear there. I mean, I pretty clearly see "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," but what I don't see is where in Article 1, Section 8 Congress manages to secure for limited times without... making a law to do so. But hey, I just know how to read... it isn't like I'm a constitutional lawyer or anything. Ok, so you guys probably recognized those two. Does anyone recognize these words?
I guess I'd need to be a Chinese constitutional lawyer to reconcile those words with the actual conduct of the government too....
Thanks AC. Yes, my head has been way up there regarding mobile phones. I've only gotten one of them in the past year and was highly disappointed that my Linux phone was off limits for developing native apps.
And I'm not talking Java MIDP. I want a phone, I want wi-fi on it, and I want to write native apps for it. No such thing exists or has even been announced to my knowledge.
You can't claim victory when you've made very deliberate predictions that temperatures will go up, and then refine those predictions (still going up but in a narrower range), if temperatures actually go down.
Let me draw a parallel: Sulfate aerosols. Twenty years ago... BAD! Spend five billion dollars on a five million dollar problem by requiring major changes to industry by amending the clean air act. Now, twenty years later, the same environmental crowd that fought against sulfates so vigorously tell us sulfate aerosols are keeping global temperatures down and should be intentionally put into the atmosphere. Keep in mind, they don't want to lift clean air act restrictions. They want to spend more money (pocket more grants) seeding it with jet airplanes, balloons and artillery cannons... I still haven't heard how this is supposed to avoid the production of acid rain, but there it is, staring you in the face. Twenty years ago, you would have told me to stuff my sulfate conspiracy theories too, I suppose.
So you say a temperature switcheroo in a few decades is impossible? Suppose they just throw up a two or three page "debunking" over at realclimate and continue on their merry way. Would that pass your sniff test? They are simply trying to scare up power and support, just like George W Bush does with the terrorism rhetoric. Remember, the whole sulfate aerosol business started in 1995 when the IPCC's prediction of 1.3C-2.3C temperature increase only turned out to be about a 0.5C increase.
Source: Testimony of Dr. Patrick J Michaels before the 105th US Congress, 1997
I've always felt that any company that really has superior products doesn't have to attack the competition this way.
Allow me to share a better reason to own a Mac and a firm rebuttal to Bill Gates with one link...
Despite the fact that the Army website is the target of hundreds of attacks every day, not one has succeeded since the switch to Mac systems in 1999.
99.995% uptime and zero security breaches for 7 years and counting.
Well, many companies will control what can be published from the research they pay for, but when it comes to the government, that is not the case at all.
Naive today, aren't we? Government can choose to suppress research in a number of ways. Either through 'censorship' (see above), or lack of funding entirely as is the case with embryonic stem cell research.
In the case linked to above, the cult of global warming calls foul because the Bush administration decided to tone down the cultists' language. Not change their findings mind you... simply take out the inflammatory language. And that makes the cultists sad.
Worth noting: King George is not alone on the phrase "global warming." Even the fine gentlemen over at realclimate.org don't want you calling it "global warming" any more. They prefer "anthropogenic climate change" now. That way, they can claim victory regardless of the direction temperatures actually go...
Oh great, the sworn enemy of the cult of global warming tries to fund a study and now they're bribing people according to slashdot editorialization. This gets so old. It's like talking to a wall.
I haven't seen anyone discredit this panel or this document yet.
Really? Given the document came out today, that might be a bit difficult. As for the panel... You must have missed the bitch slapping they got back in 1997 by Dr. Patrick J Michaels in front of congress. He the former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and has a Ph.D. in Ecological Climatology. But screw those credentials, I'm sure we can classify him as a shill if you will allow me to quote him...
The existence of current warming, and man's contribution to it, is not however in doubt.
I guess reading comprehension wasn't one of your strong points. Or maybe math... You don't even have to read the linked articles to see that you're full of shit. The submission itself quotes, 'there is a 90% chance humans are responsible for climate change.' And that's straight from the cult of global warming. I was modded higher than you, and I'm defending an unpopular viewpoint... that should tell you something.
Climate isn't correlated with absolute concentrations of CO2, because of all of the other climate factors in effect. Changes in climate are correlated with changes in CO2 ... The evidence suggests that a drop in CO2 precipitated the ice age, and a rise in CO2 may have ended it.
Damn, you contradict yourself in the same paragraph... GWB, is that you? No, it suggested that a drop in CO2 coincided with an ice age. You and your religious leaders are confusing correlation with causation. CO2 was around 4400 PPM at that time. Compared that to our 370 PPM. Yet we receive dire predictions that if CO2 rises to 400, 500, 600, etc. that the poles are going to melt and coastal cities will be inundated. If you had even bothered to read what I provided for you, you would have seen that having a large polar land mass and a continent that stretches between the poles as we have today is an essential ingredient to ice ages. The only man-made activity that might change that is the Panama canal.
Micahels' analysis was, shall we say, dodgy at best.
You cannot possibly be suggesting that a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales knows more about the climate than a research professor and State Climatologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Oh wait, you are. Pardon me, but if given nothing but the opinions of Mr. Tim Lambert and DR. Patrick J. Michaels, I think I would go with the person who had devoted his entire fucking life to studying the environment in favor of some dipshit with a CS degree who apparently spends most of his time blogging. You have got to be fucking kidding me? Is there no limit to how far your blinders extend?
McKitrick & McIntyre's analysis is also not without its flaws
Put in random data, still get a hockey stick. I don't need an 18 page rebuttal from the shills at realclimate.org to tell me the sky is green when I can see it for myself with my own two eyes.
Given the rest of your post, I can see your global warming religion is waaaaay more important to you than reality, so it's kinda pointless to even try to argue with you. I'll just leave it at that. Have a nice day, don't let the sky fall on you.
Thanks, but I'd rather you didn't.-- Jim Gaffigan.
I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that no-one in government is gonna do anything about this until high tides start rolling in over coastal capital cities and hundreds of millions of people are displaced.
Where did you read that? Oh yeah, the linked article from the Christian science monitor... The cult of global warmers should fit right in there... Still preaching fire and brimstone, eh? ;-)
Pssst!.... don't tell anyone but none of them ever had irrefutable proof.
I think Pasteur had pretty irrefutable proof. They had microscopes. They knew what caused the problem. All he had to do was convince religious freaks that bacteria didn't spontaneously appear out of nowhere by an act of God. But if you feel bacteria spontaneously generate themselves out of nothing but component pieces, feel free to drink unpasteurized milk and scoff at the rest of us for being just as susceptible to disease as yourself.
I don't think science is what you seem to think it is.
I guess that all depends on whether or not you classify global warming as science. GP is simply asking for a bit more than speculation before making trillion dollar policy decisions. I don't think that is too much to ask. Climate scientists claim CO2 is one of the primary drivers of "global warming." Yet, CO2 was an order of magnitude higher 450 million years ago and temperatures were roughly the same as they are today. CO2 concentrations are about 20% higher today than they have been any time in the last 400,000 years yet drastic temperature increases have not followed suit. In the mid 90's, Dr. Patrick Michaels called bullshit in front of Congress when predictions of higher temperatures made by computer models did not materialize. After wiping the egg from their faces, "climate scientists" once again were eating humble pie when computer models that generated gloom and doom "hockey stick" graphs were shown to spit out hockey sticks with random input by people who were not climate scientists.
Given that brief synopsis, I can see a person might be skeptical. Especially when the people predicting the end of the world are asking for taxpayer dollars to do it.
What's not working as designed, is that politicians are not taking seriously (or worse) scientists.
Gee... you coulda fooled me. I guess that's why politicians are funding this bullshit in the first place. Don't forget: A number of these "climatologists" are on welfare. They don't study without government grants.
<sarcasm>
Of course, these climatologists would never have any motivation to blow things out of proportion. Nor would the media reporting it. "More research is required" definitely brings in the ratings and the grant money a lot better than "End of the world approaching! News at 11!!"
</sarcasm>
So she supports privacy when it suits her agenda, just like everyone else in DC.
You seem pretty dense, so I'll spell it out for you. There is an upper limit to how much heat your CO2 blanket can catch. When CO2 was at 7000 PPM (compared to our current 370PPM), the global mean temp was only 22C. 22C is pretty much the highest it has ever gotten in the past 500,000,000 years or so. I'm pretty sure mankind could survive at 22C. It would be different, but mass extinction of the human race doesn't seem likely. Take your warm-blooded mammal-planet straw man elsewhere. Thanks.
CO2 levels are not the only control on global temperature. To assume such is asinine.
Hey, there's a concept we can both agree with!
However, in similar conditions, we might expect similar results.
Notice in your link that compares the Scotese global temperature scale to the Berner CO2 levels... that the last time that both were at minimal levels was during the Permian.
The Permian ended with a coincidental increase in both global temperature and CO2 levels, according to your data.
Yeah, I also notice that the author points out that ice ages occur whenever a) we have land masses that extend from our north to south pole AND b) a large south polar land mass... Could it be that one such land mass broke up due to continental drift at just about that time?! Hey, don't bother yourself with reading or examining evidence. Just look at one graph, assume it was the CO2, and contradict the first words that came out of your mouth.
THE LAST TIME THE EARTH HAD LOW TEMPERATURES AND LOW CO2, and CO2 LEVELS ROSE, ALMOST EVERYTHING DIED.
Tell me about it when 'runaway' plate techtonics splits up the Isthmus of Panama.