Methane breaks down in about 12 years due to ultraviolet light. We're also pumping far less of it into the atmosphere. Excess water falls as rain.
Plenty of scientists have looked at and are looking at the sun. There is no compelling evidence that it's causing global warming. (If you find some, please cite it instead of slurring scientists lazy).
Computer models are one of many tools used by scientists. They have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are not, by any means, the primary reason why climate scientists believe current global warming is human-induced.
Sometimes, some scientists are wrong. One of the authors of the WSJ article, for example, claimed that asbestos was completely safe.
Freeman Dyson is a quantum physicist.
Any other arguments you'd like me to refute in two sentences or less?
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator: With a background in geology. That's not climate. It's close, and a lot of geology departments are transitioning over to Earth Systems Science departments that do include things like climate, but Schmitt has a hardcore rocks-and-fossils kind of background.
Sure, but he's an Apollo 17 astronaut, which means he's actually been through the entire atmosphere. If we want to know about atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the ramifications thereof, shouldn't we trust him over these fear-mongering, capitalism-hating, so-called "climate scientists"? I mean, they haven't even been to where most of this climate stuff even happens!
You're misreading it. The court ruled unanimously that the defendant's rights were violated.
The majority opinion stated that planting a GPS device is a search, and therefore requires a warrant, full-stop. The minority opinion stated that, because of the month-long surveillance, a warrant would be necessary in this particular case. The minority opinion did not argue which circumstances would or would not require a warrant.
Try whatever tabletop approach catches your fancy but in the real world lignin just doesn't scale up to anything approaching meaningful commercial volumes
From the summary:
Most importantly for would-be biofuel-makers, it contains no lignin—a strong strand of complex sugars that stiffens plant stalks and poses a big obstacle to turning land-based plants such as switchgrass into biofuel.
Are you sure that evolution is really supposed to work like that? It sounds rather... counter-intuitive.
Yup.
It's called the "Gay Uncle" hypothesis. In short, each subsequent male child the mother births has a 7% (if I recall correctly) increased chance of being gay. The idea is that the older male siblings reproduce to pass on the family's genes while the gay offspring contribute by helping out the extended family and ensuring the children are taken care of and survive to pass on their family's genes.
Like all evolutionary psychology theories, take it with a huge grain of salt. But the notion that homosexuality must be an abberation because gays don't reproduce doesn't fit with the current state of science.
And, for what it's worth, the crap the authors try to pose as science is simply absurd. Check out some of the (many) rebuttals.
Some people just love authors' whole "we're just presenting the data, even though it's unpopular" schtick and fail to examine whether or not the actual science is sound.
I'm not going to argue against your main point that emotion sometimes gets in the way of science (it's absolutely right), but it's worth pointing out that your characterization of the science examining the difference between races is way off point.
Much of the research promoting the idea that there is a significant difference between different races' intelligence is dismissed not because it's "non-PC", but because it's utter drivel funded by paleo-conservative organizations that were heavily inspired by Nazi eugenics scientists. Seriously. [wikipedia.org]
If you want to read about some of the absurd crap that some of these guys pose as science, check out some of the many rebuttals to The Bell Curve.
And there's plenty of research, some of it also very bad, suggesting that all races have essentially equal intelligence.
We just can't say if there is a difference is intelligence between different races. Too many factors blur the picture. Hell, we can't even arrive at a reasonable definition of "intelligence".
The theory you propose explaining the possible difference in European / African intelligence seems like many evolutionary psychology theories -- a load of nonsense that kinda-sorta seems logical at face value. It's, frankly, laughable.
Every time I click on a news story involving Google, I'm all but positive that the first post will be:
a) Posted with a 2.5+ million UID
b) Over 100 words long, yet still posted the same minute the story goes live
c) Negative towards Google
Here we go again. Welcome back CmdrPony / InsightIn140Bytes / DCTech. Happy shilling. Hope you karma manages to hold out for more than 4 days this time.
Yes. Anyone different than the norm is obviously objectively broken.
Or perhaps they don't even have a lack of empathy. Perhaps they just don't feel the same way that you or others do about certain things. You know, they have different priorities than you. What they care about may be different than what you care about. And vice versa.
Subjective. Bam. I just sand-blasted your stale saltine of an argument.
The world would undoubtably be a much better place without psychopaths. Whether these posters are actually psychopaths or not, society generally concludes that there is something "wrong" with those who gleefully mock the death of a 16 year-old who was, by accounts, a good kid. Cry me a river if you feel victimized by society's desire to consider you "abnormal".
And, by the way, I don't think it's a "priority" for folks to find this news in some way sad or upsetting. It just seems like a fundamental tenet of being a human being.
How did you manage to type up this comment the moment the story came online? You aren't a subscriber, yet you managed to post a many-hundred word post in under a minute according to the timestamps.
When most of your many posts contain compliments to all things Microsoft and dubious complaints against Google, mods get cranky. Which is a good thing, in my opinion, because shilling detracts from the conversation.
Here's another article that covered that minor squabble from NPR
And a relevant excerpt:
The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues "are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice."
The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller's public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.
You must know she retracted/clarified her statements, yet you leave that tidbit out of your post. Laaaaaaame.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick point-by point:
Methane breaks down in about 12 years due to ultraviolet light. We're also pumping far less of it into the atmosphere. Excess water falls as rain.
Plenty of scientists have looked at and are looking at the sun. There is no compelling evidence that it's causing global warming. (If you find some, please cite it instead of slurring scientists lazy).
Computer models are one of many tools used by scientists. They have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are not, by any means, the primary reason why climate scientists believe current global warming is human-induced.
Sometimes, some scientists are wrong. One of the authors of the WSJ article, for example, claimed that asbestos was completely safe.
Freeman Dyson is a quantum physicist.
Any other arguments you'd like me to refute in two sentences or less?
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator: With a background in geology. That's not climate. It's close, and a lot of geology departments are transitioning over to Earth Systems Science departments that do include things like climate, but Schmitt has a hardcore rocks-and-fossils kind of background.
Sure, but he's an Apollo 17 astronaut, which means he's actually been through the entire atmosphere. If we want to know about atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the ramifications thereof, shouldn't we trust him over these fear-mongering, capitalism-hating, so-called "climate scientists"? I mean, they haven't even been to where most of this climate stuff even happens!
Let's "inject a bit of reality" and admit that being odorless and colorless is not relevant to the question of whether it's causing global warming.
Oh yeah. Cause for-profit industry is doing a great job bringing affordable health care to the masses.
We're all better served by folks with pre-existing conditions being denied basic coverage, huh?
You're misreading it. The court ruled unanimously that the defendant's rights were violated.
The majority opinion stated that planting a GPS device is a search, and therefore requires a warrant, full-stop. The minority opinion stated that, because of the month-long surveillance, a warrant would be necessary in this particular case. The minority opinion did not argue which circumstances would or would not require a warrant.
Try whatever tabletop approach catches your fancy but in the real world lignin just doesn't scale up to anything approaching meaningful commercial volumes
From the summary:
Most importantly for would-be biofuel-makers, it contains no lignin—a strong strand of complex sugars that stiffens plant stalks and poses a big obstacle to turning land-based plants such as switchgrass into biofuel.
Are you sure that evolution is really supposed to work like that? It sounds rather... counter-intuitive.
Yup.
It's called the "Gay Uncle" hypothesis. In short, each subsequent male child the mother births has a 7% (if I recall correctly) increased chance of being gay. The idea is that the older male siblings reproduce to pass on the family's genes while the gay offspring contribute by helping out the extended family and ensuring the children are taken care of and survive to pass on their family's genes.
Like all evolutionary psychology theories, take it with a huge grain of salt. But the notion that homosexuality must be an abberation because gays don't reproduce doesn't fit with the current state of science.
And, for what it's worth, the crap the authors try to pose as science is simply absurd. Check out some of the (many) rebuttals.
Some people just love authors' whole "we're just presenting the data, even though it's unpopular" schtick and fail to examine whether or not the actual science is sound.
Oops...link fail. Seriously == The Pioneer Fund
Oh, so what you're saying is that playing music, reading Shakespeare, rock climbing, and traveling are more valuable hobbies than programming is?
Erm...that's not what he's saying at all.
He's stating that he has more than one interest, which makes finding people with similar interests much easier.
It is, after all, unpopular to display any sign of intelligence in polite company.
You need to spend time with different "polite company".
I'm not going to argue against your main point that emotion sometimes gets in the way of science (it's absolutely right), but it's worth pointing out that your characterization of the science examining the difference between races is way off point.
Much of the research promoting the idea that there is a significant difference between different races' intelligence is dismissed not because it's "non-PC", but because it's utter drivel funded by paleo-conservative organizations that were heavily inspired by Nazi eugenics scientists. Seriously. [wikipedia.org]
If you want to read about some of the absurd crap that some of these guys pose as science, check out some of the many rebuttals to The Bell Curve.
And there's plenty of research, some of it also very bad, suggesting that all races have essentially equal intelligence.
We just can't say if there is a difference is intelligence between different races. Too many factors blur the picture. Hell, we can't even arrive at a reasonable definition of "intelligence".
The theory you propose explaining the possible difference in European / African intelligence seems like many evolutionary psychology theories -- a load of nonsense that kinda-sorta seems logical at face value. It's, frankly, laughable.
Here we go again.
Every time I click on a news story involving Google, I'm all but positive that the first post will be:
a) Posted with a 2.5+ million UID
b) Over 100 words long, yet still posted the same minute the story goes live
c) Negative towards Google
Here we go again. Welcome back CmdrPony / InsightIn140Bytes / DCTech. Happy shilling. Hope you karma manages to hold out for more than 4 days this time.
Yes. Anyone different than the norm is obviously objectively broken.
Or perhaps they don't even have a lack of empathy. Perhaps they just don't feel the same way that you or others do about certain things. You know, they have different priorities than you. What they care about may be different than what you care about. And vice versa.
Subjective. Bam. I just sand-blasted your stale saltine of an argument.
The world would undoubtably be a much better place without psychopaths. Whether these posters are actually psychopaths or not, society generally concludes that there is something "wrong" with those who gleefully mock the death of a 16 year-old who was, by accounts, a good kid. Cry me a river if you feel victimized by society's desire to consider you "abnormal".
And, by the way, I don't think it's a "priority" for folks to find this news in some way sad or upsetting. It just seems like a fundamental tenet of being a human being.
Now someone can hear when I play the world's tiniest violin.
How did you manage to type your 125-word post the exact minute this story was posted?
Genuine question -- how did you do that?
With posts like this, you'll have to make a yet another new account fairly soon.
You seem to be advocating stopping the story here and declaring Google pure evil full stop. I prefer a bit more nuance in my analysis.
Wikipedia has a pretty good primer on "Hollywood accounting."
Some people like "going out". Especially if it's to a place with an enjoyable atmosphere.
Huh?
Is a quiet atmosphere and no laser pointers really too much to ask?
So you're like the "I don't own a TV" guy.
Nobody cares that you don't care. Get over yourself. Seriously.
Here's my favorite example. Just like this article, the first comment was posted the same minute that the article was posted.
Oh why did my mod points expire yesterday..."and you will do as you are told, until the rights to you are sold"
Link!
How did you manage to type up this comment the moment the story came online? You aren't a subscriber, yet you managed to post a many-hundred word post in under a minute according to the timestamps.
When most of your many posts contain compliments to all things Microsoft and dubious complaints against Google, mods get cranky. Which is a good thing, in my opinion, because shilling detracts from the conversation.
And sports. Yahoo Sports often beats ESPN's site.
Here's another article that covered that minor squabble from NPR
And a relevant excerpt:
The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues "are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice."
The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller's public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.
You must know she retracted/clarified her statements, yet you leave that tidbit out of your post. Laaaaaaame.