The US is just better at it. Harper controls everything, even information about falling snow. In theUS they know that you can let the scientists talk about snow. But not WMDs.
Truly, you are an example of reasoned, scientific debate.
Wait, no you're not. I didn't ever say that the planet isn't warming up, or that the reason for that is not most likely human activities. You tried very hard to put those words in my mouth. What I said was that the actual science tends to be misrepresented by BOTH sides in a political game of extremism. And you are an excellent example of the pro-AGW extreme - any rhetoric, any evidence, good science or not, any personal attack, straw man, logical fallacy or smear campaign, so long as it forwards your agenda.
You're no better than the global warming deniers. You've taken a serious issue, with reasonably clear scientific evidence illuminating it, and obscured it all with vicious emotional arguments, politics and scare tactics.
MOND and relatives still require dark matter. The paper likely didn't consider them because their failure to keep up with cold dark matter in predictive power and simplicity really does put them in the long shot category, despite vehement defence by some people, most of whom seem to post on Slashdot.
Actually, you're both wrong. The dark matter most likely isn't normal matter because that doesn't agree with models of nucleosynthesis in the big bang. It probably is matter, because that hypothesis is the only one we've come up with that fits all the data reasonably well and doesn't require really weird new physics.
Dark matter is weakly interacting, but it probably does interact with normal matter, just like neutrinos do. It doesn't emit light (because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force), except perhaps when it annihilates.
Dark matter is an excellent name. It is dark, and it is very likely matter. And yes, it is transparent (non interacting) with the single type of radiation we can readily measure (electromagnetic).
The problem with all the other theories is that they don't fit the data, all the data, as well as the cold WIMP dark matter hypothesis.
Personally I find postulating weird vacuum interactions more of a stretch than unknown particles with properties very similar to known particles (neutrinos) that we already suspected existed for other reasons. But to each his own.
Except that to use Blackie I'd have to GO to Blackie and type in my query, whereas to use Google I can just type it into a search box without loading the page. I bet it takes more energy for Blackie to serve up the page, transfer it to me, and for my computer to display it than it saves because it's black.
"...that actually indicates that there is at least a measurable difference."
No, it implies that there's a consistently measurable difference that meets accepted requirements for being statistically significant. I didn't see any error bars, never mind any p-values.
The problem is that if you see a light that's NOT MOVING, unless it is a planet it means you're on a collision course. If it's moving and you're not already ridiculously close, you're not on a collision course and don't need to do anything.
I should have been more specific - the hockey stick graphs the public is usually shown are overly simplified, sometimes to the point of being ridiculous. Mann himself has been critical of the way his graphs have been used in the media. The world is unquestionably warming, but a lage and vocal group seem to think that basic fact is not sufficient, and try to use scare tactics like exaggerated hockey stick graphs to get more attention. That's counter productive because then deniers can point to these erroneous (and unscientific) claims, show they are flawed, and conflate that with all the scientific evidence.
There's also the problem that some rabid GW proponents address any criticism, of any kind, with accusations of ignorance, industry conflict or worse. You've nicely demonstrated that unsavoury trait. Of course, all those tactics are also used by the other side, meaning that the actual scientific evidence, which is quite good, ends up getting lost amidst the political and emotional arguments on both sides.
"Christians tend to put it away in a dark corner..."
Unless they're talking about homosexuality. Or evolution. Actually, I can't really think of a time a Christian has come around and talked at me about Jesus or anything else in the New Testament, except maybe the nastier parts of Revalations. Lots of them like to talk about parts of the Old Testament though.
I realize Christianity is SUPPOSED to focus on the New Testament, but that doesn't seem to really be what happens. Or maybe the quiet Christians do, but you never hear from them because they're minding their own business and not throwing stones.
GDPs in most countries aren't much lower than they've been previously. And a 20% decrease in CO2 emissions would be great - right now we can't even manage a halt in increases.
We are going to have to get used to the exponential growth of economies stopping. Whether for climate change or oil shortages or whatever else. Might as well start easing into it now.
Proving causation involves doing an experiment, ie purposely manipulating the variables involved. You might assume that's difficult when talking about the climate. If we cut down our emissions that will qualify though.
A correlation plus a good, well explored mechanism is pretty good evidence though.
No, he's right. The hockey stick prediction has been pretty soundly discredited. Temperature is going up, but not the way that model said it would. The hockey stick is an example of the not so solid science that gets lumped in with the solid results and touted by the global warming political camp because it's scary and extreme. Doing that is just as counterproductive as the doomsday predictions of the anti-gw crowd.
Read more carefully. Jesus wasn't so squeaky clean. And don't forget that the old testament is part of the bible too. And then there's all the other Christian writings.
Particles have all sorts of properties that may have to be conserved in any decay, including annihilation. Any stable Majorana particle would have to be only able to decay into energy if it meets another particle with complementary quantum numbers.
Sorry, I looked for a joke in your post, but couldn't find one. Amateur bombs can be quite effective. Perhaps you've heard of IEDs? Or maybe Timothy McVeigh?
As the other poster pointed out, the pipe bombs at the Olympics in Atlanta could have killed a LOT more people except that they were discovered and the evacuation was underway when the bombs went off. Even so, over a hundred people were injured. Imagine what would happen if someone did something similar, except people were being evacuated INTO the blast radius instead of OUT OF it.
When two of them meet, they annihilate. Note from the article that there are two of these things, and they are at opposite ends of the nanowire. Presumably when you turn off the power or cooling they get together and turn back into energy.
Dark matter is suspected to be the same - when two particles meet, they annihilate, potentially giving us a signal we can measure. They don't meet very often though, because dark matter barely interacts with anything, including itself.
People have gotten too used to finding conspiracy theories everywhere. Never attribute to malice what you can explain with stupidity. Most of the dumb stuff in the world happens because people have silly beliefs and make dumb decisions, not because there's a giant conspiracy.
Slashdot Mirror
The US is just better at it. Harper controls everything, even information about falling snow. In theUS they know that you can let the scientists talk about snow. But not WMDs.
Truly, you are an example of reasoned, scientific debate.
Wait, no you're not. I didn't ever say that the planet isn't warming up, or that the reason for that is not most likely human activities. You tried very hard to put those words in my mouth. What I said was that the actual science tends to be misrepresented by BOTH sides in a political game of extremism. And you are an excellent example of the pro-AGW extreme - any rhetoric, any evidence, good science or not, any personal attack, straw man, logical fallacy or smear campaign, so long as it forwards your agenda.
You're no better than the global warming deniers. You've taken a serious issue, with reasonably clear scientific evidence illuminating it, and obscured it all with vicious emotional arguments, politics and scare tactics.
MOND and relatives still require dark matter. The paper likely didn't consider them because their failure to keep up with cold dark matter in predictive power and simplicity really does put them in the long shot category, despite vehement defence by some people, most of whom seem to post on Slashdot.
Actually, you're both wrong. The dark matter most likely isn't normal matter because that doesn't agree with models of nucleosynthesis in the big bang. It probably is matter, because that hypothesis is the only one we've come up with that fits all the data reasonably well and doesn't require really weird new physics.
Dark matter is weakly interacting, but it probably does interact with normal matter, just like neutrinos do. It doesn't emit light (because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force), except perhaps when it annihilates.
Dark matter is an excellent name. It is dark, and it is very likely matter. And yes, it is transparent (non interacting) with the single type of radiation we can readily measure (electromagnetic).
The problem with all the other theories is that they don't fit the data, all the data, as well as the cold WIMP dark matter hypothesis.
Personally I find postulating weird vacuum interactions more of a stretch than unknown particles with properties very similar to known particles (neutrinos) that we already suspected existed for other reasons. But to each his own.
Huh. He replied hey? You should have sent:
Dear Author,
Ever heard of error bars?
Except that to use Blackie I'd have to GO to Blackie and type in my query, whereas to use Google I can just type it into a search box without loading the page. I bet it takes more energy for Blackie to serve up the page, transfer it to me, and for my computer to display it than it saves because it's black.
Guess what the power factor of DC is? Guess what that makes the equation?
Even when you are working with AC, it makes more sense to use the effective voltage and current.
That's not inconsistent. It's called error, or noise. Never trust a value with no error bars.
"...that actually indicates that there is at least a measurable difference."
No, it implies that there's a consistently measurable difference that meets accepted requirements for being statistically significant. I didn't see any error bars, never mind any p-values.
"I don't consider $1.2M/year to be a minute amount of money."
That's pretty minute, when it considers every single Google query.
The problem is that if you see a light that's NOT MOVING, unless it is a planet it means you're on a collision course. If it's moving and you're not already ridiculously close, you're not on a collision course and don't need to do anything.
The crew are representatives of the captain of a vessel, who has some pretty extraordinary powers while underway.
I should have been more specific - the hockey stick graphs the public is usually shown are overly simplified, sometimes to the point of being ridiculous. Mann himself has been critical of the way his graphs have been used in the media. The world is unquestionably warming, but a lage and vocal group seem to think that basic fact is not sufficient, and try to use scare tactics like exaggerated hockey stick graphs to get more attention. That's counter productive because then deniers can point to these erroneous (and unscientific) claims, show they are flawed, and conflate that with all the scientific evidence.
There's also the problem that some rabid GW proponents address any criticism, of any kind, with accusations of ignorance, industry conflict or worse. You've nicely demonstrated that unsavoury trait. Of course, all those tactics are also used by the other side, meaning that the actual scientific evidence, which is quite good, ends up getting lost amidst the political and emotional arguments on both sides.
"Christians tend to put it away in a dark corner..."
Unless they're talking about homosexuality. Or evolution. Actually, I can't really think of a time a Christian has come around and talked at me about Jesus or anything else in the New Testament, except maybe the nastier parts of Revalations. Lots of them like to talk about parts of the Old Testament though.
I realize Christianity is SUPPOSED to focus on the New Testament, but that doesn't seem to really be what happens. Or maybe the quiet Christians do, but you never hear from them because they're minding their own business and not throwing stones.
GDPs in most countries aren't much lower than they've been previously. And a 20% decrease in CO2 emissions would be great - right now we can't even manage a halt in increases.
We are going to have to get used to the exponential growth of economies stopping. Whether for climate change or oil shortages or whatever else. Might as well start easing into it now.
Proving causation involves doing an experiment, ie purposely manipulating the variables involved. You might assume that's difficult when talking about the climate. If we cut down our emissions that will qualify though.
A correlation plus a good, well explored mechanism is pretty good evidence though.
No, he's right. The hockey stick prediction has been pretty soundly discredited. Temperature is going up, but not the way that model said it would. The hockey stick is an example of the not so solid science that gets lumped in with the solid results and touted by the global warming political camp because it's scary and extreme. Doing that is just as counterproductive as the doomsday predictions of the anti-gw crowd.
Read more carefully. Jesus wasn't so squeaky clean. And don't forget that the old testament is part of the bible too. And then there's all the other Christian writings.
Particles have all sorts of properties that may have to be conserved in any decay, including annihilation. Any stable Majorana particle would have to be only able to decay into energy if it meets another particle with complementary quantum numbers.
"O and all radiation isn't bad, look at radiotherapy :-)"
Forget radiotherapy. Look. You're seeing radiation. It's kind of handy.
Sorry, I looked for a joke in your post, but couldn't find one. Amateur bombs can be quite effective. Perhaps you've heard of IEDs? Or maybe Timothy McVeigh?
As the other poster pointed out, the pipe bombs at the Olympics in Atlanta could have killed a LOT more people except that they were discovered and the evacuation was underway when the bombs went off. Even so, over a hundred people were injured. Imagine what would happen if someone did something similar, except people were being evacuated INTO the blast radius instead of OUT OF it.
When two of them meet, they annihilate. Note from the article that there are two of these things, and they are at opposite ends of the nanowire. Presumably when you turn off the power or cooling they get together and turn back into energy.
Dark matter is suspected to be the same - when two particles meet, they annihilate, potentially giving us a signal we can measure. They don't meet very often though, because dark matter barely interacts with anything, including itself.
People have gotten too used to finding conspiracy theories everywhere. Never attribute to malice what you can explain with stupidity. Most of the dumb stuff in the world happens because people have silly beliefs and make dumb decisions, not because there's a giant conspiracy.
"Typography is well established science,"
And yet you seem to have neglected the point that an open book has an aspect ratio closer to 16:9 than to 4:3.