That is very interesting. Of course in the US, we don't and have never had such a grid (AM, FM or TV).
While satellite distribution for large networks has become standard (and it why so many small networks can be national), IN THE PAST a lot of systems distributed their signal by such a "grid". In Oregon, for example, with a few large cities and lots of open space, many broadcast stations used a system of translators to serve more rural areas. A receiver on a high spot picked up the main broadcast signal and retransmitted it locally on a different channel. The "PBS" in this state is one service -- OPB -- generated out of Portland and relayed to all the other transmitters. It is currently done vie the Internet, but it used to be done via TV. And much of the major network distribution was done via a microwave backbone. That's the "grid" you claim never existed.
No, it isn't a national grid because "national" in the US is so much larger than "national" in Norway or many other places in the world, but there were grids doing it.
... a bit bad if there is ever an emergency broadcast though, since I will never be tuned in to it.
This is an important issue that is never considered. Airlines (hello, United) are walking into dangerous waters with their move towards aircraft that have absolutely no entertainment systems at all, or require paying for the DirectTV in the seatback. More and more people are moving to using PED (personal electronic devices) for their distractions, and NONE of those are linked into the aircraft announcement system.
Imagine the scene in "Scully" where the announcement comes over the PA to "brace for impact" and the stews start shouting the commands repeatedly, but the majority of the passengers never hear it because they are listening to their pearPods or whatever. And those who do hear it only hear what comes out the pathetic speaker system, which is unintelligible most of the time anyway.
It's a safety issue that will come home to roost sometime soon.
We've had digital FM (aka HD Radio) for several years. I have a receiver in my truck.
Because, of course, the inside of your truck is the perfect listening experience that absolutely demands the highest quality audio sources. Analogue FM simply isn't good enough for that environment.
If they are employees, certainly Uber can demand that they work specific hours or not be employees anymore?
They can. They currently don't. At the point where there is a surplus of Uber wannabee drivers and public demand for Uber, I expect that Uber may put more demands on their drivers so they can guarantee supply.
I've never heard of "employees" who can work or not work at their own whim just by signing into or out of an app.
Most employers don't, but Uber does. Someone I know used to work for a credit counseling service from home part time. She would sign in when she was able to work, sign out when she wasn't.
Permission was granted when the user voluntarily opened a malicious attachment or navigated to a nefarious web site.
This was modded "Informative"? You are a loon.
I answered that the "system" was granted permission by the operator,
So if I ask you if I can borrow your lawnmower, but instead take your car out of your garage and run it into a tree, you're ok with that because you gave me permission to take something out of your garage and you really didn't care what it was? Or a user who agreed to allow a website to install "File Compressor Pro" actually agreed to let them install ransomware instead because they agreed to allow the site to install something, it doesn't matter what?
It matters nothing at all what the permission was for, "permission" means "anything"?
users aren't allowed to use computers for personal use, so why are they panic-clicking on an attachment that their "UPS package will not be delivered until you click on this link..."
A user who is dealing with a package delivery TO THE COMPANY is doing this as "personal use" and shouldn't be?
AND the... Firm has a contract with FEDEX for that shit anyway.
Who you have a contract with for sending packages means nothing when it comes to how others send packages to you. If I get good rates from UPS to ship things and I use them to send something to your previous employer, FedEx does NOT get to demand that they actually get paid to deliver that package to them.
For example it wouldn't be money laundering if somebody paid taxes on the income!
And it wouldn't be ransomware without extortion.
Why are we against criminalizing such bad behavior directly.
Because criminalizing every variant of everything we want to prohibit leads to massive volumes of criminal law, and the expectation that something that isn't specified exactly by name isn't a crime at all. You really don't want to have to wait for the legislators to catch up with a specific law regarding "some existing crime DONE ON A COMPUTER" just because it wasn't specified that way explicitly in the current law. I point to the parallel between this and patent law where "something already patented DONE ON A COMPUTER" is worthy of another patent.
Maybe they knew it was ransomware and were pissed off at their employer.
Do you believe that the crime of extortion does not exist if someone uses someone else's demands for money to attack a third party?
I'm still left wondering whether the decision to put a leap second on the night tech support staff are most likely to be (conspiracy options elided)...
Or most likely, the people who put the leap second where it was knew there was no perfect time to do it, and assumed that anyone who was writing software that was so time-critical that it cared if there was a leap second would properly handle the issue in their code.
It's not their fault that some developers using an off-beat language that has a library that panics if a parameter is invalid (and was written so that there could BE an invalid parameter, which they could have avoided) didn't bounds check their parameters to such a function.
The Go documentation clearly says it panics if n = 0.
And it says it panics if n is less than 0.
If you write a library function that requires positive input always, and returns positive output always, then use unsigned input and output variables. A good compiler will flag the attempt at sending such a function a signed input as a warning at least. Pedantic compilers will fail -- better than the production program failing.
And while it seems stupid, the proper action when asked for a random number between 0 and 0 is to return 0, not panic. (I believe the [ on the range means "including", but I could be wrong. If it didn't mean "including", then the documentation should be '(1,n)'.)
But then, the test cases for the DNS code should have included 0 and negative, so this should have been caught when the function was tested.
Hint, CO2 that is exhaled contains trace amounts of C14. Fossil CO2 doesn't.
Hint, a trace of C14 doesn't change the gross physical properties of CO2, so no, in the context of CO2 and global climate change, there is no difference. Your attempt at exonerating yourself as a participant in AGW fails due to a lack of understanding of basic chemistry.
How did this kind of chicken-little the-sky-is-falling FUD make its way onto Slashdot?
Because it fits neatly into the vast conspiracy theory mentality and technology is going to destroy the world mindset.
There is an ongoing furor in a neighboring city over the installation of the mind-destroying radio-signal transmitters in the smart meters the local electric company has installed. Now they can all worry about waking up to find all their stuff has been stolen by crooks who didn't need to break in. Not sure how you steal stuff from a locked house by controlling the electric meter, but it must be true. The Guardian wouldn't publish it if it weren't, would it?
And they say fake news on the Internet is a problem.
Just like Obama was reelected in 2012 despite not closing Gitmo, "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor", "if you like your plan you can keep your plan", US troops out of Iraq, US troops out of Afghanistan, etc...
Seems like people voting for politicians who have lied to them is not a single-party issue.
The models reflect the historical climate accurately.
So there is a very high probability that those same models predictions of future climate are also reasonably accurate.
It is almost trivial to write a model that matches historical data. It is even easier when you are allowed to massage that historical data to remove "outliers" that don't match your model output, or filter or adjust it to remove biases, etc. It is MUCH harder to write a model that can then accurately predict climate, given the number of variables and how they effect the outcome.
I remember getting a happy email from the folks at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) who were creating models that produced the "hockey stick". They were tickled pink that they had just modified the model parameters so that it still followed the historical data ("hindcast") but had a much more significant up-bend in the predictions. In other words, they changed a few numbers used in the model and it showed a much worse problem. Both sets of parameters "correctly" predicted the same past data, but they differed for the future. What was the difference? They picked the numbers to get the result they wanted to show.
Most people don't realize the simplifications that have to be written into any model just to get the thing to run in a reasonable amount of time. That's true for small scale models; it's VERY true for global scales. You can make a model produce just about any output you want if you choose the right approximations and empirical parameters. Would you like good surfing waves next week on your favorite beach? Give me a few hours and I can predict whatever surf conditions you want...
I don't know how many people feel that way strongly enough to ignore the environment, but it's an important difference.
I don't think it makes any difference at all.
What does make a difference is that science has been very bad at explaining what the normal person sees outside their kitchen window. Everyone sees the temperature vary by a large amount every day. They can't detect a 0.1C increase on average over a year or a month. They look out the window and see snow and ice on the ground in a place where ten years ago that never happened. But temperatures are going up? They read in the news that the local mountains are already over their normal snowpack levels for the winter, but snow melts when it gets warm and if the temperatures are higher...?
It's the old tale of how you boil a frog. You can't throw him into a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out. You put him in cold water and bring it to a boil slowly. The frogs don't see a problem.
People have gotten tired of asking how global climate change can be true based on what they see, and getting the answers "it's the climate, not the weather STUPID", or "the science is settled, there is no debate on this issue." Or being brushed off with "almost all scientists agree, so it must be right". The "scientists" who have chosen this method of communicating with the public need to sit down and shut up and let trained communicators take the lead.
The idea that "academics" is a singular group that are so dedicated to supporting their tribe that they would brook no dissent is a recipe for denying any and all evidence that you disagree with.
I've seen what happens to reasonable, scientific people who disagree with the IGCC and consensus. I've seen the flames spouting from climate scientists when they talk to regular folk who dare ask questions. We had one person on faculty here who you could count on to have a vitriolic letter to the editor of the city paper every time someone else had a letter questioning the science. As predictable as... gravity.
It is hyperbole to say "would brook no dissent" in regard to the entire community, but for a significant part of it that is exactly and horrifyingly true.
So please, don't discount the good old boys network when considering what is happening in this branch of science. Faculty meetings get rather tense when one of the attendees does not accept the consensus in the field, no matter what field that is. It's human nature. Scientists are humans. It happens.
according this is what Galileo said on the way out, after having been ordered to deny that Earth moves around the Sun: "And yet it moves".
Except that modern science and scientists know that the Earth does not move around the Sun, it moves around a point that is, excepting gravitational influences from other masses, the center of gravity of the Earth-Sun pair. Even Galileo had it wrong!
No-one has done double blind studies to check if parachutes work. Maybe we should randomly distribute real parachutes and placebos to some reasonable size test groups,
You don't need double blind, and in fact, for "parachute tests" you can't manage it. The physical appearance of a parachute over your head tells you that you didn't get the placebo. Further, there is no test subject that would change the results based on psychological effects as can easily happen with subjective results like "is your headache better or worse" or "on a scale of 1 to 10..." that medical double-blind research techniques are necessary to preclude.
In addition, there have been sufficient "placebo" studies of people falling from great heights without a parachute, so it is not necessary to include those as a control.
Thus it is impossible to prove 100% that climate change is driven by humans.
It is impossible to prove 50% for that reason, as well. It is possible to see a correlation, but that's all. Proof requires removing other factors from the experiment, and that cannot be done for climate change since, as you point out, there is no control Earth which differs only in the levels of atmospheric CO2.
There is something different between the CO2 that you exhale and "fossil CO2" that allows infrared radiation to be absorbed by one and not the other?
You can start with faulty premises, apply valid logic and arrive at an incorrect conclusion.
For example, "if 999 doctors tell you... and 1 tells you...", which implies that those 999 doctors have independently studied the issue and have all come to the same conclusion. Those 999 doctors are relying on a few scientific studies -- the same ones -- and thus do not create a force multiplier on that data.
In 1945 those 999 doctors would have told you that 30 ppb As in your drinking water was not a problem. That's because 50 ppb was the accepted standard at that time. Today they'll tell you that 30 ppb is horrible because the EPA now sets the standard at 10 ppb.
So you send the tap water from your well off to be tested, and they say it has 12 +/-2 ppb As. Do you immediately start boiling all your water? (No, of course not, since boiling has no effect on As concentration.) Do you immediately run out and spend a large amount of money to get your tap water down to 8 +/-3 ppb? You might, but you'd be foolish not to consider the cost of getting the level down.
Now imagine the report is 6 +/-2 ppb. Do you spend ANY money on getting it down to 0? Of course not, even though obviously 0 is better than 6 ppb, isn't it? Don't you want the purest water for your family? Do you spend $150,000 for a purification system that can get you down to 1 ppb?
Were the 999 doctors in 1945 wrong? Well, yes, it turns out they were. Suppose you asked 999 doctors in 1588 why you were feeling poorly, and all 999 of them said it was an imbalance in your humours that could be solved by two sessions with leeches. Is the fact that 999 of them tell you the same thing make all 999 of them right? I'll leave that as a rhetorical question.
Once again, for the millionth time:
you obviously don't understand how scientific funding works.
You can repeat that lie two million times, and I'd still know a lot more about how the funding process works than you do. I don't know what country you live in, but here in the USA, federal funding agencies do NOT have an unlimited budget to hand out to research. They MUST prioritize the funding based on scientific merit and scientific NEED. You might have the most interesting question to answer about insect physiology that might get funded -- except there is a crisis that needs to be solved called "global climate change". You don't get funded, the climate scientist does. So, in two years, that climate scientist comes back and shows that global climate change really doesn't exist. Does that funding agency give him more money to study that problem further? Of course not. The scientific need is gone. No crisis, no funding.
That's how it works for all the federal agencies involved in earth science research. ONR, NSF, USGS, USACE, etc.
yes I know you claim to be a 25year phd researcher....
but if that were true, you wouldn't keep posting the same stupid BS every time.
I keep posting the truth as directly observed over 25 years. You have nothing other than insult to respond with. I don't know what your experience is, or where you got it, but it is not how things work in the earth sciences. It may be your utopian view of how funding should happen, with all the money in the world available to anyone who asks for it, but that's not real.
that, or you ARE one of the shills who produces results based on what the funder wants.
Thus proving my point. Thanks. By the way, I get funding (or have) from all of the agencies I mentioned above. I know how all of them work.
But I guess YOU at least know that climate change does not cause Tsunamis;D ?
I didn't say it did. I spoke about tsunami/flood inundation based on sea level rise, which IS impacted by global climate change. The higher the sea level, the further inland any tsunami or storm surge will progress, putting more people and property at risk. Did you miss those words, or are you making an obtuse claim that sea level rise is not a result of global climate change?
The grant would come from the same place that they had before.
Of course not. A funding agency doesn't keep funding research into areas that don't need it. If global climate change was disproved, then why would any agency spend its limited budget on funding more research into how to solve it? They are hesitant to keep funding research that hasn't met the goals when there is still a lot left to learn; why would they fund things that they are told aren't a problem?
What evidence do you have that their funding would stop? You have none; it's just your assumption.
Twenty five years working in academic research funded by federal and private grants, seeing what does get funded, what doesn't get funded, and what loses funding. Talking with program managers who have the responsibility to make sure the limited budget their programs have gets distributed to important research.
They judge their worth by the number of citations they receive.
Funding agencies don't have the money to fund researched based on the citation count. They fund research based on what needs to be solved.
If climate change is disproved, it will be a huge boon to the scientists.
To every scientist except those studying ways to solve global climate change. The money going to fund that crisis will be diverted to more important research.
Then who do they give Nobel prizes to, if not those who have made revolutionary discoveries?
They used to give Nobel prizes to people who have made scientific discoveries. Saying "X doesn't cause Y" is not sufficient. There are lots of X's that don't cause Y. Saying "I have found the true cause of global climate change" would merit one, but simply disproving AGW isn't finding the true cause.
If you look at the top of this page, to the section we like to refer to as the "summary", you will see the rule was proposed by Paul Ryan (R - Douchebagistan) in the current session of Congress and reported on December 24, 2016.
No, if you look in the summary you will see that it clearly says that the rule was already in place but not enforced. The rule wasn't created on Dec. 2016 if it was already in place. Do you have information about when the rule was actually created, and not just political pot-shot insults to make?
If you look closely, you will see that certain phrases are underlined, indicating that you can go to a source by clicking on it.
I've read those sources. None of them say when the rule was created. I'll assume you don't have that information either, since you could have linked to it.
Of course I act differently when no one is watching. The difference is that my job isn't to be the people's actual representation in government.
Where did you get the idea that a congressman's job prohibits him from acting differently when he is being watched from when he isn't? That's just nuts.
If I request that no one watch what I'm doing so that I can do it without fear of their judgement, that's called malpractice.
That's not what is happening here.
an attempt to be able to act one way and then tell the American people that no, it didn't really happen that way, and you have to take my word for it since we told C-SPAN they couldn't record it and banned other reps from doing it either.
Nobody is banning C-SPAN from covering house sessions live. If the house isn't in session, it isn't doing anything official. If you think you have a right to have live video of what congressmen do while the house is not in session, where does that stop? Cameras in their offices so we can see who they are meeting with? Cameras in their cars? Body cams so when they go to a restaurant we can see who they are dining with? It might be business, you know, must see it live!
Sorry. There is an official system for providing live video of house activities, designed to be non-partisan in nature and report the facts without twist. (It fails at times, yes.) We do not need twitter video feeds from one rep showing that another rep is yawning while a speech is going on, or other kinds of partisan political nonsense getting in the way of them doing what they were sent there to do. And no, they weren't sent there to be video stars, or to make videos of what is happening.
I think you're making the rather childish mistake of thinking that you can separate, "the business of governance" and "politics".
I think you are making the childish mistake of confusing "the purpose for" and "how it is being used". The purpose of congress is not to play politics or get free speech time to constituents. That it is being used for that, and has confused people into thinking that it why congress is there, is a bad thing. Rules that reduce the misuse of congress are a good thing.
Taking a penalty-less procedural rule and attaching legal consequences *is* "making it illegal".
I think you missed a few ESL classes. No, it isn't. The rule existed.
Slashdot Mirror
That is very interesting. Of course in the US, we don't and have never had such a grid (AM, FM or TV).
While satellite distribution for large networks has become standard (and it why so many small networks can be national), IN THE PAST a lot of systems distributed their signal by such a "grid". In Oregon, for example, with a few large cities and lots of open space, many broadcast stations used a system of translators to serve more rural areas. A receiver on a high spot picked up the main broadcast signal and retransmitted it locally on a different channel. The "PBS" in this state is one service -- OPB -- generated out of Portland and relayed to all the other transmitters. It is currently done vie the Internet, but it used to be done via TV. And much of the major network distribution was done via a microwave backbone. That's the "grid" you claim never existed.
No, it isn't a national grid because "national" in the US is so much larger than "national" in Norway or many other places in the world, but there were grids doing it.
... a bit bad if there is ever an emergency broadcast though, since I will never be tuned in to it.
This is an important issue that is never considered. Airlines (hello, United) are walking into dangerous waters with their move towards aircraft that have absolutely no entertainment systems at all, or require paying for the DirectTV in the seatback. More and more people are moving to using PED (personal electronic devices) for their distractions, and NONE of those are linked into the aircraft announcement system.
Imagine the scene in "Scully" where the announcement comes over the PA to "brace for impact" and the stews start shouting the commands repeatedly, but the majority of the passengers never hear it because they are listening to their pearPods or whatever. And those who do hear it only hear what comes out the pathetic speaker system, which is unintelligible most of the time anyway.
It's a safety issue that will come home to roost sometime soon.
We've had digital FM (aka HD Radio) for several years. I have a receiver in my truck.
Because, of course, the inside of your truck is the perfect listening experience that absolutely demands the highest quality audio sources. Analogue FM simply isn't good enough for that environment.
The design files for the HiFive 1 were made with Altium, a proprietary and non-Free software.
Umm, if you need proprietary software to modify the "open hardware" design, is it really open hardware?
If they are employees, certainly Uber can demand that they work specific hours or not be employees anymore?
They can. They currently don't. At the point where there is a surplus of Uber wannabee drivers and public demand for Uber, I expect that Uber may put more demands on their drivers so they can guarantee supply.
I've never heard of "employees" who can work or not work at their own whim just by signing into or out of an app.
Most employers don't, but Uber does. Someone I know used to work for a credit counseling service from home part time. She would sign in when she was able to work, sign out when she wasn't.
Permission was granted when the user voluntarily opened a malicious attachment or navigated to a nefarious web site.
This was modded "Informative"? You are a loon.
I answered that the "system" was granted permission by the operator,
So if I ask you if I can borrow your lawnmower, but instead take your car out of your garage and run it into a tree, you're ok with that because you gave me permission to take something out of your garage and you really didn't care what it was? Or a user who agreed to allow a website to install "File Compressor Pro" actually agreed to let them install ransomware instead because they agreed to allow the site to install something, it doesn't matter what?
It matters nothing at all what the permission was for, "permission" means "anything"?
users aren't allowed to use computers for personal use, so why are they panic-clicking on an attachment that their "UPS package will not be delivered until you click on this link ..."
A user who is dealing with a package delivery TO THE COMPANY is doing this as "personal use" and shouldn't be?
AND the ... Firm has a contract with FEDEX for that shit anyway.
Who you have a contract with for sending packages means nothing when it comes to how others send packages to you. If I get good rates from UPS to ship things and I use them to send something to your previous employer, FedEx does NOT get to demand that they actually get paid to deliver that package to them.
I think you "retired" a bit too late.
For example it wouldn't be money laundering if somebody paid taxes on the income!
And it wouldn't be ransomware without extortion.
Why are we against criminalizing such bad behavior directly.
Because criminalizing every variant of everything we want to prohibit leads to massive volumes of criminal law, and the expectation that something that isn't specified exactly by name isn't a crime at all. You really don't want to have to wait for the legislators to catch up with a specific law regarding "some existing crime DONE ON A COMPUTER" just because it wasn't specified that way explicitly in the current law. I point to the parallel between this and patent law where "something already patented DONE ON A COMPUTER" is worthy of another patent.
Maybe they knew it was ransomware and were pissed off at their employer.
Do you believe that the crime of extortion does not exist if someone uses someone else's demands for money to attack a third party?
how eat cows/pigs is better than eat kittens?
Pro: cow/pig bigger than kitten, therefore don't need eat two kitten for dinner, just one cow.
Con: cow/pig less tender, need tenderizer. Kitten yummy. Like veal. Cat, ick, old and tough.
Pro: cow/pig available at local store. Must hunt kitten. Here kitty kitty... Hello Kitty!
I'm still left wondering whether the decision to put a leap second on the night tech support staff are most likely to be (conspiracy options elided) ...
Or most likely, the people who put the leap second where it was knew there was no perfect time to do it, and assumed that anyone who was writing software that was so time-critical that it cared if there was a leap second would properly handle the issue in their code.
It's not their fault that some developers using an off-beat language that has a library that panics if a parameter is invalid (and was written so that there could BE an invalid parameter, which they could have avoided) didn't bounds check their parameters to such a function.
The Go documentation clearly says it panics if n = 0.
And it says it panics if n is less than 0.
If you write a library function that requires positive input always, and returns positive output always, then use unsigned input and output variables. A good compiler will flag the attempt at sending such a function a signed input as a warning at least. Pedantic compilers will fail -- better than the production program failing.
And while it seems stupid, the proper action when asked for a random number between 0 and 0 is to return 0, not panic. (I believe the [ on the range means "including", but I could be wrong. If it didn't mean "including", then the documentation should be '(1,n)'.)
But then, the test cases for the DNS code should have included 0 and negative, so this should have been caught when the function was tested.
Hint, CO2 that is exhaled contains trace amounts of C14. Fossil CO2 doesn't.
Hint, a trace of C14 doesn't change the gross physical properties of CO2, so no, in the context of CO2 and global climate change, there is no difference. Your attempt at exonerating yourself as a participant in AGW fails due to a lack of understanding of basic chemistry.
How did this kind of chicken-little the-sky-is-falling FUD make its way onto Slashdot?
Because it fits neatly into the vast conspiracy theory mentality and technology is going to destroy the world mindset.
There is an ongoing furor in a neighboring city over the installation of the mind-destroying radio-signal transmitters in the smart meters the local electric company has installed. Now they can all worry about waking up to find all their stuff has been stolen by crooks who didn't need to break in. Not sure how you steal stuff from a locked house by controlling the electric meter, but it must be true. The Guardian wouldn't publish it if it weren't, would it?
And they say fake news on the Internet is a problem.
Seems like people voting for politicians who have lied to them is not a single-party issue.
The models reflect the historical climate accurately. So there is a very high probability that those same models predictions of future climate are also reasonably accurate.
It is almost trivial to write a model that matches historical data. It is even easier when you are allowed to massage that historical data to remove "outliers" that don't match your model output, or filter or adjust it to remove biases, etc. It is MUCH harder to write a model that can then accurately predict climate, given the number of variables and how they effect the outcome.
I remember getting a happy email from the folks at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) who were creating models that produced the "hockey stick". They were tickled pink that they had just modified the model parameters so that it still followed the historical data ("hindcast") but had a much more significant up-bend in the predictions. In other words, they changed a few numbers used in the model and it showed a much worse problem. Both sets of parameters "correctly" predicted the same past data, but they differed for the future. What was the difference? They picked the numbers to get the result they wanted to show.
Most people don't realize the simplifications that have to be written into any model just to get the thing to run in a reasonable amount of time. That's true for small scale models; it's VERY true for global scales. You can make a model produce just about any output you want if you choose the right approximations and empirical parameters. Would you like good surfing waves next week on your favorite beach? Give me a few hours and I can predict whatever surf conditions you want...
I don't know how many people feel that way strongly enough to ignore the environment, but it's an important difference.
I don't think it makes any difference at all.
What does make a difference is that science has been very bad at explaining what the normal person sees outside their kitchen window. Everyone sees the temperature vary by a large amount every day. They can't detect a 0.1C increase on average over a year or a month. They look out the window and see snow and ice on the ground in a place where ten years ago that never happened. But temperatures are going up? They read in the news that the local mountains are already over their normal snowpack levels for the winter, but snow melts when it gets warm and if the temperatures are higher ...?
It's the old tale of how you boil a frog. You can't throw him into a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out. You put him in cold water and bring it to a boil slowly. The frogs don't see a problem.
People have gotten tired of asking how global climate change can be true based on what they see, and getting the answers "it's the climate, not the weather STUPID", or "the science is settled, there is no debate on this issue." Or being brushed off with "almost all scientists agree, so it must be right". The "scientists" who have chosen this method of communicating with the public need to sit down and shut up and let trained communicators take the lead.
The idea that "academics" is a singular group that are so dedicated to supporting their tribe that they would brook no dissent is a recipe for denying any and all evidence that you disagree with.
I've seen what happens to reasonable, scientific people who disagree with the IGCC and consensus. I've seen the flames spouting from climate scientists when they talk to regular folk who dare ask questions. We had one person on faculty here who you could count on to have a vitriolic letter to the editor of the city paper every time someone else had a letter questioning the science. As predictable as ... gravity.
It is hyperbole to say "would brook no dissent" in regard to the entire community, but for a significant part of it that is exactly and horrifyingly true.
So please, don't discount the good old boys network when considering what is happening in this branch of science. Faculty meetings get rather tense when one of the attendees does not accept the consensus in the field, no matter what field that is. It's human nature. Scientists are humans. It happens.
according this is what Galileo said on the way out, after having been ordered to deny that Earth moves around the Sun: "And yet it moves".
Except that modern science and scientists know that the Earth does not move around the Sun, it moves around a point that is, excepting gravitational influences from other masses, the center of gravity of the Earth-Sun pair. Even Galileo had it wrong!
No-one has done double blind studies to check if parachutes work. Maybe we should randomly distribute real parachutes and placebos to some reasonable size test groups,
You don't need double blind, and in fact, for "parachute tests" you can't manage it. The physical appearance of a parachute over your head tells you that you didn't get the placebo. Further, there is no test subject that would change the results based on psychological effects as can easily happen with subjective results like "is your headache better or worse" or "on a scale of 1 to 10..." that medical double-blind research techniques are necessary to preclude.
In addition, there have been sufficient "placebo" studies of people falling from great heights without a parachute, so it is not necessary to include those as a control.
Thus it is impossible to prove 100% that climate change is driven by humans.
It is impossible to prove 50% for that reason, as well. It is possible to see a correlation, but that's all. Proof requires removing other factors from the experiment, and that cannot be done for climate change since, as you point out, there is no control Earth which differs only in the levels of atmospheric CO2.
What!? It's fossil CO2 that is the problem.
There is something different between the CO2 that you exhale and "fossil CO2" that allows infrared radiation to be absorbed by one and not the other?
You can start with faulty premises, apply valid logic and arrive at an incorrect conclusion.
For example, "if 999 doctors tell you ... and 1 tells you ...", which implies that those 999 doctors have independently studied the issue and have all come to the same conclusion. Those 999 doctors are relying on a few scientific studies -- the same ones -- and thus do not create a force multiplier on that data.
In 1945 those 999 doctors would have told you that 30 ppb As in your drinking water was not a problem. That's because 50 ppb was the accepted standard at that time. Today they'll tell you that 30 ppb is horrible because the EPA now sets the standard at 10 ppb.
So you send the tap water from your well off to be tested, and they say it has 12 +/-2 ppb As. Do you immediately start boiling all your water? (No, of course not, since boiling has no effect on As concentration.) Do you immediately run out and spend a large amount of money to get your tap water down to 8 +/-3 ppb? You might, but you'd be foolish not to consider the cost of getting the level down.
Now imagine the report is 6 +/-2 ppb. Do you spend ANY money on getting it down to 0? Of course not, even though obviously 0 is better than 6 ppb, isn't it? Don't you want the purest water for your family? Do you spend $150,000 for a purification system that can get you down to 1 ppb?
Were the 999 doctors in 1945 wrong? Well, yes, it turns out they were. Suppose you asked 999 doctors in 1588 why you were feeling poorly, and all 999 of them said it was an imbalance in your humours that could be solved by two sessions with leeches. Is the fact that 999 of them tell you the same thing make all 999 of them right? I'll leave that as a rhetorical question.
Once again, for the millionth time: you obviously don't understand how scientific funding works.
You can repeat that lie two million times, and I'd still know a lot more about how the funding process works than you do. I don't know what country you live in, but here in the USA, federal funding agencies do NOT have an unlimited budget to hand out to research. They MUST prioritize the funding based on scientific merit and scientific NEED. You might have the most interesting question to answer about insect physiology that might get funded -- except there is a crisis that needs to be solved called "global climate change". You don't get funded, the climate scientist does. So, in two years, that climate scientist comes back and shows that global climate change really doesn't exist. Does that funding agency give him more money to study that problem further? Of course not. The scientific need is gone. No crisis, no funding.
That's how it works for all the federal agencies involved in earth science research. ONR, NSF, USGS, USACE, etc.
yes I know you claim to be a 25year phd researcher.... but if that were true, you wouldn't keep posting the same stupid BS every time.
I keep posting the truth as directly observed over 25 years. You have nothing other than insult to respond with. I don't know what your experience is, or where you got it, but it is not how things work in the earth sciences. It may be your utopian view of how funding should happen, with all the money in the world available to anyone who asks for it, but that's not real.
that, or you ARE one of the shills who produces results based on what the funder wants.
Thus proving my point. Thanks. By the way, I get funding (or have) from all of the agencies I mentioned above. I know how all of them work.
But I guess YOU at least know that climate change does not cause Tsunamis ;D ?
I didn't say it did. I spoke about tsunami/flood inundation based on sea level rise, which IS impacted by global climate change. The higher the sea level, the further inland any tsunami or storm surge will progress, putting more people and property at risk. Did you miss those words, or are you making an obtuse claim that sea level rise is not a result of global climate change?
The grant would come from the same place that they had before.
Of course not. A funding agency doesn't keep funding research into areas that don't need it. If global climate change was disproved, then why would any agency spend its limited budget on funding more research into how to solve it? They are hesitant to keep funding research that hasn't met the goals when there is still a lot left to learn; why would they fund things that they are told aren't a problem?
What evidence do you have that their funding would stop? You have none; it's just your assumption.
Twenty five years working in academic research funded by federal and private grants, seeing what does get funded, what doesn't get funded, and what loses funding. Talking with program managers who have the responsibility to make sure the limited budget their programs have gets distributed to important research.
They judge their worth by the number of citations they receive.
Funding agencies don't have the money to fund researched based on the citation count. They fund research based on what needs to be solved.
If climate change is disproved, it will be a huge boon to the scientists.
To every scientist except those studying ways to solve global climate change. The money going to fund that crisis will be diverted to more important research.
Then who do they give Nobel prizes to, if not those who have made revolutionary discoveries?
They used to give Nobel prizes to people who have made scientific discoveries. Saying "X doesn't cause Y" is not sufficient. There are lots of X's that don't cause Y. Saying "I have found the true cause of global climate change" would merit one, but simply disproving AGW isn't finding the true cause.
If you look at the top of this page, to the section we like to refer to as the "summary", you will see the rule was proposed by Paul Ryan (R - Douchebagistan) in the current session of Congress and reported on December 24, 2016.
No, if you look in the summary you will see that it clearly says that the rule was already in place but not enforced. The rule wasn't created on Dec. 2016 if it was already in place. Do you have information about when the rule was actually created, and not just political pot-shot insults to make?
If you look closely, you will see that certain phrases are underlined, indicating that you can go to a source by clicking on it.
I've read those sources. None of them say when the rule was created. I'll assume you don't have that information either, since you could have linked to it.
Of course I act differently when no one is watching. The difference is that my job isn't to be the people's actual representation in government.
Where did you get the idea that a congressman's job prohibits him from acting differently when he is being watched from when he isn't? That's just nuts.
If I request that no one watch what I'm doing so that I can do it without fear of their judgement, that's called malpractice.
That's not what is happening here.
an attempt to be able to act one way and then tell the American people that no, it didn't really happen that way, and you have to take my word for it since we told C-SPAN they couldn't record it and banned other reps from doing it either.
Nobody is banning C-SPAN from covering house sessions live. If the house isn't in session, it isn't doing anything official. If you think you have a right to have live video of what congressmen do while the house is not in session, where does that stop? Cameras in their offices so we can see who they are meeting with? Cameras in their cars? Body cams so when they go to a restaurant we can see who they are dining with? It might be business, you know, must see it live!
Sorry. There is an official system for providing live video of house activities, designed to be non-partisan in nature and report the facts without twist. (It fails at times, yes.) We do not need twitter video feeds from one rep showing that another rep is yawning while a speech is going on, or other kinds of partisan political nonsense getting in the way of them doing what they were sent there to do. And no, they weren't sent there to be video stars, or to make videos of what is happening.
I think you're making the rather childish mistake of thinking that you can separate, "the business of governance" and "politics".
I think you are making the childish mistake of confusing "the purpose for" and "how it is being used". The purpose of congress is not to play politics or get free speech time to constituents. That it is being used for that, and has confused people into thinking that it why congress is there, is a bad thing. Rules that reduce the misuse of congress are a good thing.
Taking a penalty-less procedural rule and attaching legal consequences *is* "making it illegal".
I think you missed a few ESL classes. No, it isn't. The rule existed.