$120k is a lot of money if you don't have anything else to use it on: eg. postdocs, conferences etc, which is precisely his situation.
He was paid to have a desk at a prestigious university; put his name on papers dealing with output of the Sun's energy; and then sit back when everyone calls him an astrophysicist at a prestigious astrophysics institute and take the money.
Can you show me that climatologists are getting their money from "green" industries?
Because I think paying an institution to accept an engineer into an astrophysics institute so his publications on solar output can seem more authoritative is as conspiratorial as it gets: But you just skip over that bit - how convenient.
> The modern education system from kindergarten to doctoral studies is biased against boys
Yeah right. So we need positive discrimination laws for boys? Sorry girls, your barely 100 years of voting and maybe 50 years of being allowed in university lectures (though they were booed as they walked in) is just too much for us boys to handle.
but the Earth had warning and cooling periods before men had any influence.
I never understood why people think this is an argument for anything. We're talking about
subject matters like paleoclimatology and the experts in the field who work on climate change.
They know this shit.
That's why AGW is so dangerous - they know that there has never been climate change this *fast* before. *All* the other times it took hundreds of thousand of years to do the same thing that is now happening in
a few hundred.
No it's not. Just because DDT doesn't increase the risk of breast cancer that it is somehow safe.
A Lancet review of epidemiological studies concluded that that DDT causes cancers of the liver, and pancreas, that there is mixed evidence that it causes cancers of the testes, and that it probably does not contribute to cancers of the rectum, prostate, endometrium, lung, or stomach.
(Rogan WJ, Chen A (2005). "Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT)". Lancet 366 (9487): 763–73.)
DDT is linked with a lot of development problems - especially at the levels needed for malaria eradication.
I think it's healthy that we're debating whether or not a chemical, that has both beneficial and harmful effects, should be used - but risk assessment isn't cut and dry.
"...the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) finds that urban heating has an influence on global temperature trends that is “nearly negligible” and that what effect has been observed is even slightly negative, which is to say that temperature trends in urban areas are actually cooler than the trends measured at rural sites, and that the Earth's land surface has warmed approximately 1C on average since 1950."
The problem with we shouldn't fund "X-ers or X-ists for doing X" is that for X = science you get something totally different in return from anything else. You get new and demonstrable knowledge.
The interesting thing is when you do see a "normal" girl doing software development you can instantly see how much more "aware" they are with interacting with other people.
Not a lot of people will like to hear this - but because they have the technology skills AND the social skills they get picked up pretty quickly for
jobs requiring more responsibility and eventually higher ranking jobs.
In fact I'm pretty tired of going over to talk to a (male) colleague and they either can't or won't answer the question but instead will ramble on about something slightly
related but nothing to with my question; or they'll be so passive-aggressive about any question that you have to know the answer beforehand to be able to
ask the question in the precisely right way that they are willing to answer (think about talking to Dick Cheney about torture).
Of course, I'm ignoring that Russian girl who didn't know how to formulate an if-statement. And then there are those brilliant guys I've worked with which
I still can't figure out their code - but it works just fine.
Furthermore, we don't even know how the regular, massive swings in global temperature happen.
And this is what pisses me off with the climate "skeptics". If you don't know how the system will react when you're increasing the concentration of CO2 then why not err on the side of mitigating the CO2 concentrations instead of "business as usual".
For an ice-age to occur you need three things:
0) Land masses near the poles (lets say in the northern hemisphere)
1) Earth's tilt needs to decrease (from it's present 23.5 degrees),
2) Earth's eccentricity increases, and
3) Summer in the northern hemisphere happens during Earth's aphelion
When these 3 things happen. The summer is not powerful enough to melt all the ice created during winter. This allows the glaciers to grow.
Ice-ages happen when we get cooler summers. NOT because it's getting colder.
Remember you're talking to people who think that they can dismiss what you say because they (the deniers) think that everyone who uses the term climate change doesn't understand that the Earth's climate has changed before. But they're too stupid to understand that when we say climate change we mean anthropogenic climate change.
Italian: "non ho fatto niente" means "I didn't do anything", but a literal translation is "I didn't do nothing". So some languages allow you to use a double negative to signify the negative.
What do you mean draconian? If, like a lot of/.-ers, you are libertarian how else will we pay for using the roads? A petrol/gas tax? But that's forced stealing - so you can't have that! The only far system is you-pay-as-you-go. The more miles you travel on the roads the more you need to pay. If you have a better system I would like to hear it.
They have their reasons if you actually read about it. Anyway it takes roughly 20 years to plan, get funding, and build the thing. That's why they're starting now. It's called "what happens if you only have one chance to build something that as yet the technology hasn't been developed yet". For instance the LHC was designed before they knew if they could find magnets to be able to "bend the beams".
Also check out http://www.linearcollider.org/.
A lot of this is due to the fact that we no longer value expertise/experts. We've had too many well-funded self-interest groups going around nick picking experts until all that is left is your own self-doubt.
Universities are full of experts and to not take advantage of that is one of the least fruitful things you can do while there.
> is get your foot in the door of a first job or two
Unless the person hiring you is an idiot. I don't have a CS degree but I do have one in maths (PhD). Unfortunately the interviewer refused to accept that I have any knowledge in CS because I didn't have a CS degree. I pointed out I was involved in one of the first big pushes of "experimental mathematics" where we program computers to investigate high level maths objects. Nope, can't get the job - no CS degree.
After about 5 interviews like this in Australia I moved to Europe and in my first interview with a startup I got a programming job.
It's all about attitudes. Some people have had problems with people with CS degrees. Some people have problems with self-taught guys. You really need to interview people based on what they can give to the company.
...was how fast it booted up. One of the worse was how many times it needed to be restarted whenever it had an update. I thought Linux didn't need to be restarted;)
Why has heart compatibility have anything to do with immune system compatibility? Ferrets have a similar immune system to us than pigs do. Pigs on the other hand have a heart as big as a human - ferret hearts are too small. If ferrets had bigger hearts we'll be using them.
Slashdot Mirror
With all that time to spare he could have sent a link to a peer reviewed paper on it. I wonder why he didn't?
Also in Soylent Green.
He profited from a market that doesn't exist. He's better than I thought!
$120k is a lot of money if you don't have anything else to use it on: eg. postdocs, conferences etc, which is precisely his situation. He was paid to have a desk at a prestigious university; put his name on papers dealing with output of the Sun's energy; and then sit back when everyone calls him an astrophysicist at a prestigious astrophysics institute and take the money.
Can you show me that climatologists are getting their money from "green" industries? Because I think paying an institution to accept an engineer into an astrophysics institute so his publications on solar output can seem more authoritative is as conspiratorial as it gets: But you just skip over that bit - how convenient.
> The modern education system from kindergarten to doctoral studies is biased against boys Yeah right. So we need positive discrimination laws for boys? Sorry girls, your barely 100 years of voting and maybe 50 years of being allowed in university lectures (though they were booed as they walked in) is just too much for us boys to handle.
but the Earth had warning and cooling periods before men had any influence.
I never understood why people think this is an argument for anything. We're talking about subject matters like paleoclimatology and the experts in the field who work on climate change. They know this shit.
That's why AGW is so dangerous - they know that there has never been climate change this *fast* before. *All* the other times it took hundreds of thousand of years to do the same thing that is now happening in a few hundred.
A Lancet review of epidemiological studies concluded that that DDT causes cancers of the liver, and pancreas, that there is mixed evidence that it causes cancers of the testes, and that it probably does not contribute to cancers of the rectum, prostate, endometrium, lung, or stomach.
(Rogan WJ, Chen A (2005). "Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT)". Lancet 366 (9487): 763–73.)
DDT is linked with a lot of development problems - especially at the levels needed for malaria eradication.
I think it's healthy that we're debating whether or not a chemical, that has both beneficial and harmful effects, should be used - but risk assessment isn't cut and dry.
"...the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) finds that urban heating has an influence on global temperature trends that is “nearly negligible” and that what effect has been observed is even slightly negative, which is to say that temperature trends in urban areas are actually cooler than the trends measured at rural sites, and that the Earth's land surface has warmed approximately 1C on average since 1950."
Err...James Webb telescope, maybe? Mostly a infrared telescope - as Hubble was a visual and UV one.
beyond just that scientists want to science.
The problem with we shouldn't fund "X-ers or X-ists for doing X" is that for X = science you get something totally different in return from anything else. You get new and demonstrable knowledge.
In fact I'm pretty tired of going over to talk to a (male) colleague and they either can't or won't answer the question but instead will ramble on about something slightly related but nothing to with my question; or they'll be so passive-aggressive about any question that you have to know the answer beforehand to be able to ask the question in the precisely right way that they are willing to answer (think about talking to Dick Cheney about torture).
Of course, I'm ignoring that Russian girl who didn't know how to formulate an if-statement. And then there are those brilliant guys I've worked with which I still can't figure out their code - but it works just fine.
And this is what pisses me off with the climate "skeptics". If you don't know how the system will react when you're increasing the concentration of CO2 then why not err on the side of mitigating the CO2 concentrations instead of "business as usual".
But if you don't understand something how can you judge if it's a good explanation?
Wasn't that Reagan's administration? His administration forced the UN to create the IPCC mostly political reasons. http://www.aip.org/history/cli...
For an ice-age to occur you need three things: 0) Land masses near the poles (lets say in the northern hemisphere) 1) Earth's tilt needs to decrease (from it's present 23.5 degrees), 2) Earth's eccentricity increases, and 3) Summer in the northern hemisphere happens during Earth's aphelion When these 3 things happen. The summer is not powerful enough to melt all the ice created during winter. This allows the glaciers to grow. Ice-ages happen when we get cooler summers. NOT because it's getting colder.
Remember you're talking to people who think that they can dismiss what you say because they (the deniers) think that everyone who uses the term climate change doesn't understand that the Earth's climate has changed before. But they're too stupid to understand that when we say climate change we mean anthropogenic climate change.
Italian: "non ho fatto niente" means "I didn't do anything", but a literal translation is "I didn't do nothing". So some languages allow you to use a double negative to signify the negative.
What do you mean draconian? If, like a lot of /.-ers, you are libertarian how else will we pay for using the roads? A petrol/gas tax? But that's forced stealing - so you can't have that! The only far system is you-pay-as-you-go. The more miles you travel on the roads the more you need to pay. If you have a better system I would like to hear it.
They have their reasons if you actually read about it. Anyway it takes roughly 20 years to plan, get funding, and build the thing. That's why they're starting now. It's called "what happens if you only have one chance to build something that as yet the technology hasn't been developed yet". For instance the LHC was designed before they knew if they could find magnets to be able to "bend the beams". Also check out http://www.linearcollider.org/.
A lot of this is due to the fact that we no longer value expertise/experts. We've had too many well-funded self-interest groups going around nick picking experts until all that is left is your own self-doubt. Universities are full of experts and to not take advantage of that is one of the least fruitful things you can do while there.
Like Jenny McCarthy.
> is get your foot in the door of a first job or two Unless the person hiring you is an idiot. I don't have a CS degree but I do have one in maths (PhD). Unfortunately the interviewer refused to accept that I have any knowledge in CS because I didn't have a CS degree. I pointed out I was involved in one of the first big pushes of "experimental mathematics" where we program computers to investigate high level maths objects. Nope, can't get the job - no CS degree. After about 5 interviews like this in Australia I moved to Europe and in my first interview with a startup I got a programming job. It's all about attitudes. Some people have had problems with people with CS degrees. Some people have problems with self-taught guys. You really need to interview people based on what they can give to the company.
...was how fast it booted up. One of the worse was how many times it needed to be restarted whenever it had an update. I thought Linux didn't need to be restarted ;)
Why has heart compatibility have anything to do with immune system compatibility? Ferrets have a similar immune system to us than pigs do. Pigs on the other hand have a heart as big as a human - ferret hearts are too small. If ferrets had bigger hearts we'll be using them.