I guess there might be some wisdom in that, but if you truly trusted no one, it'd be impossible to get anything done.
Maybe we need to be more careful to not put all our eggs in one basket. Standards are great, but what if AES-n turns out to be backdoored or intentionally weak someday? Maybe the runners-up should continue being developed and used as well.
One of the most-cited "polls" is a paper by Cook, et al. But Cook simply lied. Here, I'll explain it simply, with nice, round, hypothetical (yet representative) numbers to make it simple.
1,000 scientists write papers on the topic of AGW. 646 of the scientists neither endorse nor deny the AGW hypothesis. 348 of the scientists endorse the AGW hypothesis.
Then another "scientist" writes a paper about those papers. When he's writing his conclusions, he ignores the 646 neutral papers--he reduces his sample to the 348 papers which endorsed AGW. Then he says that 97% of those 348 papers claim to support "the consensus." Then--and this is the crucial part, so listen closely--then he says that 97% of all scientists claim to support "the AGW consensus."
And on top of all that, he completely miscategorized at least 500 of the papers he used for his results--this is according to the authors of the papers themselves.
Of course, this isn't even mentioning the flawed methodologies used in the data the IPCC reports are based on, nor the political manipulation used to rip out "inconvenient truths" from the IPCC drafts before publishing. Or how about this: the lead author of the IPCC reports said that the computer models used to make the IPCC projections are not tracking with reality over the last 20 years. The lead author said that. And these are the projections used to justify immediate, heavy-handed action.
What about the fact that as far back as the 1970s, "global warming" and "climate change" were being actively promoted as "vehicles" to effect unrelated political policies. The amount of money being spent on both sides of the issue by enormous corporations, organizations, and governments to manipulate the populations of the world into demanding action is obscene. That alone should give everyone serious pause.
But go ahead and believe what you want. What's really sad is that people like you say that people like me are the ones in denial.
One of the most-cited "polls" is a paper by Cook, et al. Cook simply lied. Here, I'll explain it simply, with nice, round, hypothetical (yet representative) numbers to make it simple.
1,000 scientists write papers on the topic of AGW. 646 of the scientists neither endorse nor deny the AGW hypothesis. 348 of the scientists endorse the AGW hypothesis.
Then another "scientist" writes a paper about those papers. When he's writing his conclusions, he ignores the 646 neutral papers--he reduces his sample to the 348 papers which endorsed AGW. Then he says that 97% of those 348 papers claim to support "the consensus." Then--and this is the crucial part, so listen closely--then he says that 97% of all scientists claim to support "the AGW consensus."
That's called lying.
And that's only part of it. He also plotted to play word games, taking quotes out of context, to "convert" the neutral papers to pro-AGW viewpoints [populartechnology.net]. That's called intellectual (even scientific) dishonesty--a politcally correct way of saying "lying." And he planned this before even doing the research--before he even knew what the numbers were. That is not science--that is politics and social engineering.
And on top of all that, he completely miscategorized at least 500 of the papers he used for his results--this is according to the authors of the papers themselves.
But go ahead and believe what you want. What's really sad is that people like you say that people like me are the ones in denial.
Apparently you are forced to resort to ad hominems instead of logical argument. This is typical of alarmists.
Let's reason together with nice, round, hypothetical (yet representative) numbers to make it simple.
1,000 scientists write papers on the topic of AGW. 646 of the scientists neither endorse nor deny the AGW hypothesis. 348 of the scientists endorse the AGW hypothesis.
Then another "scientist" writes a paper about those papers. When he's writing his conclusions, he ignores the 646 neutral papers--he reduces his sample to the 348 papers which endorsed AGW. Then he says that 97% of those 348 papers claim to support "the consensus." Then--and this is the crucial part, so listen closely--then he says that 97% of all scientists claim to support "the AGW consensus."
And on top of all that, he completely miscategorized at least 500 of the papers he used for his results--this is according to the authors of the papers themselves.
But go ahead and believe what you want. What's really sad is that people like you say that people like me are the ones in denial.
Please share the links you found. If anything I said is untrue, I would genuinely like to be corrected. I'm only interested in the truth, wherever it may lead.
Otherwise your AC response is nothing but unsubstantiated assertions and appeal to ridicule. Sadly, that's enough to convince a large swath of the population.
Your well-reasoned argument has convinced me to change my mind. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
As is so typical of the alarmists, the rebuttal is nothing but ad hominems--literally not a single rational argument in reply. And they say we're the ones in denial.
It's a fact that as far back as the 1970s, climate change and global warming were being promoted as vehicles to effect unrelated political policies. If that, combined with the enormous amounts of money being spent to manipulate the populations of the world in both directions, doesn't give you pause, then I don't think we have anything to talk about.
Well, I think you shouldn't speak for all of humanity. There are many places in the world which we would consider not conducive to human life--but people have lived there for thousands of years. It's not a life we would enjoy, but maybe some of those people are fine with it. Who's to say that we are "better"?
Exactly. Who's going to pay to put food on the table for all the people who will be cold and without jobs? Oh, well, they're just people, and humanity is evil, so it's ok. We deserve to suffer for all the damage we've done to...everything.
These people are so arrogant that out of one side of their mouth they say that we are an evil, foolish species, and out of the other say that we are wise enough to understand the entire planet's climates and ecosystems on a timescale of millions of years. Pure hypocrisy.
Wow, eleven whole years. That's, like, almost a dozen. This is really a problem. We need to do something. I mean, how many times in the past century has this happened? This time must be our fault.
Well hey, there are plenty of detailed models that are used to make all sorts of predictions.
But they don't prove anything. How ludicrous that a computer program could actually model an entire planet's climate on a significant timescale. We can't even predict the local weather accurately past a few days!
Ah, a voice of reason. A few people actually understand that computer simulations don't prove anything, especially when a puny computer is simulating an entire planet's worth of systems.
Wow, great job at sounding reasonable and then subtly begging the question. I almost missed it.
The point I would take away is that we really don't know how much impact we have on the climate. As you yourself said, we have a severe lack of knowledge.
Humankind is a force to be reckoned with.
A meaningless cliche aimed at emotional manipulation. When it comes to killing other humans, yeah, some of us can be scary. When it comes to affecting the entire planet's weather and climate systems, that's a whole 'nother ballgame, and we don't even know the rules yet.
The question should not be is warming/climate change aided by manmade endeavors. It should be, now that we realize we have the power to alter the climate, what do we want to do? Let it go as is? Change it for the better? Try to change it back?
No, you've simply presumed that we are. The question is still whether we are having any significant impact on the climate on a global scale and on a significant timescale.
And even if we were to find out that we are truly having a significant impact on the climate, I would still strongly question whether we could know what is "better" in the long term, for humanity or for any other living thing on the planet. Earth is not humans vs. nature--we are as much a part of Earth's natural fauna as any other species.
I'm fine with them asking for help. I'm not fine with the government forcing us to help through higher taxes and programs which promote unwise, unsafe practices.
One of the biggest problems with the AGW proponents is that much of their basic data is inconclusive because of flawed measuring methodology. Do a bit of googling about the sea level measurements used to claim that sea level is rising.
Another problem is that the amount of CO2 produced by humanity is less than the margin of error of the measurement of how much CO2 the oceans produce. The amount we produce is laughably small compared to what the oceans produce. We're probably not as impactful on the global climate as we seem to think.
Another problem is that CO2 levels and temperature do not always rise in unison. Sometimes it is opposite than what one would expect for the greenhouse effect. And this is one of the fundamental arguments for AGW.
Another issue is that simple logic shows that we cannot scientifically know for certain what the climate was like thousands or millions of years ago, regardless of what kinds of ice core measurements you take, because it's not reproducible. The timescale is simply enormous, practically beyond human comprehension, even if we can run the numbers. Educated guesses are still guesses. What if they are wrong? What if we were to cripple ourselves economically by imposing unnecessary restrictions on ourselves? Think of all the suffering that would cause. How would history judge us then?
Another issue is the enormous complexity of the planetary systems. For example, we don't even know half of what's in the ocean. New species are discovered every day. In my opinion it's ludicrous to think that we puny humans can comprehend the complexity of this planet, its ecosystems and its climates, and that we could understand them well enough to know what the wisest course of action truly is. How arrogant are we? Historically, very.
Another issue is simple history. We've only been running machines for a few hundred years. The earth has been both much hotter and much colder than it is now, long, long before we were making a noticable amount of CO2 (which we may still not be doing). Simple logic applied to this fact indicates to me that we can't possibly know whether we are impacting the climates as much as we think, or whether the earth is simply going through natural cycles which we can hardly affect. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying it's very unwise to make drastic, forced changes upon humanity, because we don't truly know what we are talking about.
Finally, while this is political, it's also true: it's a simple fact that at least as far back as the 1970s, "global warming" and "climate change" were being actively promoted as "vehicles" to effect political policies, to manipulate entire populations. This doesn't affect whether AGW is actually happening, but any reasonable person must seriously consider the possibility that what we are seeing is less AGW and more political manipulation on a massive scale. A few minutes of googling will show that the "panels" that have put out "studies" about climate change have been strongly influenced by politics, have fudged numbers, ripped out facts before going public, used flawed methodologies--yet these are the same studies that so many AGW proponents point to as "consensus" and "settled fact" and "evidence."
The only fact that I'm absolutely sure of is that AGW and climate change are hugely political issues with massive corporations and organizations spending billions on both the pro and con sides trying to get their way by manipulating governments and gullible masses into foaming at the mouth and demanding action. No one is truly unbiased. You want the truth? Follow the money.
That's true, but the only solution to those is to not use the Internet at all. Since you're on Slashdot, and not even AC, I'm guessing that's not an option you're considering.
I don't think Google's as not-evil as it used to be, but I'm guessing that they are less evil and more privacy-advocating and -protecting than most corporations, such as...every major ISP.
As much as I'm against mass surveillance, the bottom line hasn't changed in many years: if you need serious privacy, either use strong encryption or use meatspace.
You're still generalizing. I think those dedicated personnel could do it just fine without computers (i.e. general purpose computers) or a network. For example, heart monitors with loud klaxons don't need to be hooked up to an aggregating display over a network. In fact, one could argue that it's better to do it this way, because it's a less complex and more compartmentalized system and therefore less prone to failure (especially unnoticed failure).
The eICU Program clinically transforms the ICU, using a proactive care model that provides a solution to growing physician and nurse shortages while dramatically improving quality of care. Through an ideal blend of medicine with technology, this care model leverages clinical expertise, patented processes, and cutting-edge technologies to improve critical care delivery.
...I still don't know what that does, and looking at their "program overview" page was even less informative. I have a feeling that it's mostly mumbo-jumbo designed to sucker hospitals into spending more money, raising the cost of health care and medical insurance, and further depersonalizing medicine by putting more technology between patients and doctors. But I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're basically saying, "TRUST NO ONE!"
I guess there might be some wisdom in that, but if you truly trusted no one, it'd be impossible to get anything done.
Maybe we need to be more careful to not put all our eggs in one basket. Standards are great, but what if AES-n turns out to be backdoored or intentionally weak someday? Maybe the runners-up should continue being developed and used as well.
..."Off-topic"?
Mod parent up please.
One of the most-cited "polls" is a paper by Cook, et al. But Cook simply lied. Here, I'll explain it simply, with nice, round, hypothetical (yet representative) numbers to make it simple.
1,000 scientists write papers on the topic of AGW.
646 of the scientists neither endorse nor deny the AGW hypothesis.
348 of the scientists endorse the AGW hypothesis.
Then another "scientist" writes a paper about those papers. When he's writing his conclusions, he ignores the 646 neutral papers--he reduces his sample to the 348 papers which endorsed AGW. Then he says that 97% of those 348 papers claim to support "the consensus." Then--and this is the crucial part, so listen closely--then he says that 97% of all scientists claim to support "the AGW consensus."
That's called lying.
And that's only part of it. He also plotted to play word games, taking quotes out of context, to "convert" the neutral papers to pro-AGW viewpoints. That's called intellectual (even scientific) dishonesty--a politcally correct way of saying "lying." And he planned this before even doing the research--before he even knew what the numbers were. That is not science--that is politics and social engineering.
And on top of all that, he completely miscategorized at least 500 of the papers he used for his results--this is according to the authors of the papers themselves.
Of course, this isn't even mentioning the flawed methodologies used in the data the IPCC reports are based on, nor the political manipulation used to rip out "inconvenient truths" from the IPCC drafts before publishing. Or how about this: the lead author of the IPCC reports said that the computer models used to make the IPCC projections are not tracking with reality over the last 20 years. The lead author said that. And these are the projections used to justify immediate, heavy-handed action.
What about the fact that as far back as the 1970s, "global warming" and "climate change" were being actively promoted as "vehicles" to effect unrelated political policies. The amount of money being spent on both sides of the issue by enormous corporations, organizations, and governments to manipulate the populations of the world into demanding action is obscene. That alone should give everyone serious pause.
But go ahead and believe what you want. What's really sad is that people like you say that people like me are the ones in denial.
One of the most-cited "polls" is a paper by Cook, et al. Cook simply lied. Here, I'll explain it simply, with nice, round, hypothetical (yet representative) numbers to make it simple.
1,000 scientists write papers on the topic of AGW.
646 of the scientists neither endorse nor deny the AGW hypothesis.
348 of the scientists endorse the AGW hypothesis.
Then another "scientist" writes a paper about those papers. When he's writing his conclusions, he ignores the 646 neutral papers--he reduces his sample to the 348 papers which endorsed AGW. Then he says that 97% of those 348 papers claim to support "the consensus." Then--and this is the crucial part, so listen closely--then he says that 97% of all scientists claim to support "the AGW consensus."
That's called lying.
And that's only part of it. He also plotted to play word games, taking quotes out of context, to "convert" the neutral papers to pro-AGW viewpoints [populartechnology.net]. That's called intellectual (even scientific) dishonesty--a politcally correct way of saying "lying." And he planned this before even doing the research--before he even knew what the numbers were. That is not science--that is politics and social engineering.
And on top of all that, he completely miscategorized at least 500 of the papers he used for his results--this is according to the authors of the papers themselves.
But go ahead and believe what you want. What's really sad is that people like you say that people like me are the ones in denial.
Apparently you are forced to resort to ad hominems instead of logical argument. This is typical of alarmists.
Let's reason together with nice, round, hypothetical (yet representative) numbers to make it simple.
1,000 scientists write papers on the topic of AGW.
646 of the scientists neither endorse nor deny the AGW hypothesis.
348 of the scientists endorse the AGW hypothesis.
Then another "scientist" writes a paper about those papers. When he's writing his conclusions, he ignores the 646 neutral papers--he reduces his sample to the 348 papers which endorsed AGW. Then he says that 97% of those 348 papers claim to support "the consensus." Then--and this is the crucial part, so listen closely--then he says that 97% of all scientists claim to support "the AGW consensus."
That's called lying.
And that's only part of it. He also plotted to play word games, taking quotes out of context, to "convert" the neutral papers to pro-AGW viewpoints. That's called intellectual (even scientific) dishonesty--a politcally correct way of saying "lying." And he planned this before even doing the research--before he even knew what the numbers were. That is not science--that is politics and social engineering.
And on top of all that, he completely miscategorized at least 500 of the papers he used for his results--this is according to the authors of the papers themselves.
But go ahead and believe what you want. What's really sad is that people like you say that people like me are the ones in denial.
Please share the links you found. If anything I said is untrue, I would genuinely like to be corrected. I'm only interested in the truth, wherever it may lead.
Otherwise your AC response is nothing but unsubstantiated assertions and appeal to ridicule. Sadly, that's enough to convince a large swath of the population.
Your well-reasoned argument has convinced me to change my mind. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
As is so typical of the alarmists, the rebuttal is nothing but ad hominems--literally not a single rational argument in reply. And they say we're the ones in denial.
But the truth is that the present-day "consensus" is also a myth. The real majority of scientists think we don't know one way or the other.
Ah, ad hominems are so much easier than research! And they are often more effective than facts.
Yeah, the idea that journalism should be impartial is so last century.
Here's some truth for you: The majority (64.6%) of "the people actually practicing science" think we don't know whether AGW is happening.
But hey, 97% of the 34.8% of scientists who have endorsed AGW agree with "the consensus," so it must be real. The numbers can't lie!
"90% of baseball is half mental." I'm sure Yogi Berra would believe in AGW. (Forgive me!)
I'm sure the ancients said the same thing when the "consensus" was that the earth was flat.
"Insightful" my foot. Nothing but fallacy.
Thank you for explaining this. I wish the major media would explain what you just did. It simply confirms the famous old quote about statistics.
The truth is not that there is consensus that AGW is real--the consensus is that we don't know.
It's a fact that as far back as the 1970s, climate change and global warming were being promoted as vehicles to effect unrelated political policies. If that, combined with the enormous amounts of money being spent to manipulate the populations of the world in both directions, doesn't give you pause, then I don't think we have anything to talk about.
Well, I think you shouldn't speak for all of humanity. There are many places in the world which we would consider not conducive to human life--but people have lived there for thousands of years. It's not a life we would enjoy, but maybe some of those people are fine with it. Who's to say that we are "better"?
Oh, these results are reproducible? Oh, of course, you can run the computer simulations as many times as you want. My mistake.
Exactly. Who's going to pay to put food on the table for all the people who will be cold and without jobs? Oh, well, they're just people, and humanity is evil, so it's ok. We deserve to suffer for all the damage we've done to...everything.
These people are so arrogant that out of one side of their mouth they say that we are an evil, foolish species, and out of the other say that we are wise enough to understand the entire planet's climates and ecosystems on a timescale of millions of years. Pure hypocrisy.
Yeah, "nature" must prevail over these evil humans!
*cough*We're part of nature too.*cough*
Wow, eleven whole years. That's, like, almost a dozen. This is really a problem. We need to do something. I mean, how many times in the past century has this happened? This time must be our fault.
Well hey, there are plenty of detailed models that are used to make all sorts of predictions.
But they don't prove anything. How ludicrous that a computer program could actually model an entire planet's climate on a significant timescale. We can't even predict the local weather accurately past a few days!
Ah, a voice of reason. A few people actually understand that computer simulations don't prove anything, especially when a puny computer is simulating an entire planet's worth of systems.
Wow, great job at sounding reasonable and then subtly begging the question. I almost missed it.
The point I would take away is that we really don't know how much impact we have on the climate. As you yourself said, we have a severe lack of knowledge.
Humankind is a force to be reckoned with.
A meaningless cliche aimed at emotional manipulation. When it comes to killing other humans, yeah, some of us can be scary. When it comes to affecting the entire planet's weather and climate systems, that's a whole 'nother ballgame, and we don't even know the rules yet.
The question should not be is warming/climate change aided by manmade endeavors. It should be, now that we realize we have the power to alter the climate, what do we want to do? Let it go as is? Change it for the better? Try to change it back?
No, you've simply presumed that we are. The question is still whether we are having any significant impact on the climate on a global scale and on a significant timescale.
And even if we were to find out that we are truly having a significant impact on the climate, I would still strongly question whether we could know what is "better" in the long term, for humanity or for any other living thing on the planet. Earth is not humans vs. nature--we are as much a part of Earth's natural fauna as any other species.
I'm fine with them asking for help. I'm not fine with the government forcing us to help through higher taxes and programs which promote unwise, unsafe practices.
Here's some food for thought.
One of the biggest problems with the AGW proponents is that much of their basic data is inconclusive because of flawed measuring methodology. Do a bit of googling about the sea level measurements used to claim that sea level is rising.
Another problem is that the amount of CO2 produced by humanity is less than the margin of error of the measurement of how much CO2 the oceans produce. The amount we produce is laughably small compared to what the oceans produce. We're probably not as impactful on the global climate as we seem to think.
Another problem is that CO2 levels and temperature do not always rise in unison. Sometimes it is opposite than what one would expect for the greenhouse effect. And this is one of the fundamental arguments for AGW.
Another issue is that simple logic shows that we cannot scientifically know for certain what the climate was like thousands or millions of years ago, regardless of what kinds of ice core measurements you take, because it's not reproducible. The timescale is simply enormous, practically beyond human comprehension, even if we can run the numbers. Educated guesses are still guesses. What if they are wrong? What if we were to cripple ourselves economically by imposing unnecessary restrictions on ourselves? Think of all the suffering that would cause. How would history judge us then?
Another issue is the enormous complexity of the planetary systems. For example, we don't even know half of what's in the ocean. New species are discovered every day. In my opinion it's ludicrous to think that we puny humans can comprehend the complexity of this planet, its ecosystems and its climates, and that we could understand them well enough to know what the wisest course of action truly is. How arrogant are we? Historically, very.
Another issue is simple history. We've only been running machines for a few hundred years. The earth has been both much hotter and much colder than it is now, long, long before we were making a noticable amount of CO2 (which we may still not be doing). Simple logic applied to this fact indicates to me that we can't possibly know whether we are impacting the climates as much as we think, or whether the earth is simply going through natural cycles which we can hardly affect. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying it's very unwise to make drastic, forced changes upon humanity, because we don't truly know what we are talking about.
Finally, while this is political, it's also true: it's a simple fact that at least as far back as the 1970s, "global warming" and "climate change" were being actively promoted as "vehicles" to effect political policies, to manipulate entire populations. This doesn't affect whether AGW is actually happening, but any reasonable person must seriously consider the possibility that what we are seeing is less AGW and more political manipulation on a massive scale. A few minutes of googling will show that the "panels" that have put out "studies" about climate change have been strongly influenced by politics, have fudged numbers, ripped out facts before going public, used flawed methodologies--yet these are the same studies that so many AGW proponents point to as "consensus" and "settled fact" and "evidence."
The only fact that I'm absolutely sure of is that AGW and climate change are hugely political issues with massive corporations and organizations spending billions on both the pro and con sides trying to get their way by manipulating governments and gullible masses into foaming at the mouth and demanding action. No one is truly unbiased. You want the truth? Follow the money.
That's true, but the only solution to those is to not use the Internet at all. Since you're on Slashdot, and not even AC, I'm guessing that's not an option you're considering.
I don't think Google's as not-evil as it used to be, but I'm guessing that they are less evil and more privacy-advocating and -protecting than most corporations, such as...every major ISP.
As much as I'm against mass surveillance, the bottom line hasn't changed in many years: if you need serious privacy, either use strong encryption or use meatspace.
You're still generalizing. I think those dedicated personnel could do it just fine without computers (i.e. general purpose computers) or a network. For example, heart monitors with loud klaxons don't need to be hooked up to an aggregating display over a network. In fact, one could argue that it's better to do it this way, because it's a less complex and more compartmentalized system and therefore less prone to failure (especially unnoticed failure).
The eICU Program clinically transforms the ICU, using a proactive care model that provides a solution to growing physician and nurse shortages while dramatically improving quality of care. Through an ideal blend of medicine with technology, this care model leverages clinical expertise, patented processes, and cutting-edge technologies to improve critical care delivery.
...I still don't know what that does, and looking at their "program overview" page was even less informative. I have a feeling that it's mostly mumbo-jumbo designed to sucker hospitals into spending more money, raising the cost of health care and medical insurance, and further depersonalizing medicine by putting more technology between patients and doctors. But I could be wrong.