Not to mention that Mullar was never even close to a skeptic and his co-author (Dr. J. Curry, a prominent climate researcher who would hardly be called a skeptic either) is disputing his comments about what the data shows. The great thing about the BEST project is all of the data and methods are available. Unlike Hadley CRU who have lost their original data, and still refuse to provide the various Ural data sets.Or GISS that won't provide the method(s??) used to 'normalize' their data. With the BEST project, we can see things like this comparison of what Mullar released to the press and what the data actually shows. Note that the two graphs have different time scales on the x axis, which is not quite cricket, but the point is valid.
No, it is more likely that Mullar, who has always been on the mainstream side, knew his data set would show 10 years of no warming while CO2 increased. This would be fuel to the fire of climate skeptics, so he pre-empted with a press release stating that the data shows one thing when it actually shows the exact opposite.
Given the number of true believers here (people I equate with the deniers on the skeptic side), I am wondering how long this post, all of which is factual and can be confirmed with relative ease, will be modded "troll". Seems to happen to all posts that are in any way skeptical.
Also, ocean level increase seems to have reversed itself. If this too continues, will the alarmists finally admit that maybe things are not worse than we thought? Personally, I believe that it IS worse than we think. We are on the cusp of the next ice age and instead of figuring out how to live in a much cooler world we are maniacally doing everything in our power to make it cooler. Of course the people who are advocating this are the same people who tell us the solution to the debt crisis is to borrow more money.
The fact that human activity is the source of most of the CO2 increase has been documented. CO2 outputs can and have been measured, and there is no doubt that human activity is the cause of the increase. That *you* can doubt this shows that you are being influenced by the denialists.
We are rapidly approaching the point where we will be unable to prevent global temperatures from rising higher than they have ever been during the existence of humans. Do you really think it likely that we will do *better* in an environment that we did not evolve to live in?
I see you didn't quote the parent. You are talking about increased CO2 being a result of human activity. The original poster was talking about human activity impacting climate. I would be someone you would call a denier. Here are things I'm sure of. Please point out what I'm denying.
1.Global Warming is real.
2.Humans have impacted climate, particularly by gaseous pollutants. Methane will have an impact on climate, CFC’s really do chew up the ozone layer. SO2 has cooled the world. (and probably accounts for the cooling from 1945 to 1975 and may account for the flat lining over the last 10 years)
3.The “greenhouse effect” or the increase in atmospheric temperature due to absorption of electromagnetic radiation, is real.
4.CO2 is the second largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.
5. Though water is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, the CO2 affect is cumulative to this, so it is important.
If you get your information from realclimate, or worse New Scientist, the fact that most deniers agree with all these points is probably news to you. But they do. So you can see why denier is not only a derogatory term, it is also wrong. Skeptics yes. Deniers? Not so much.
You really need to do some thinking of your own. Without questioning the conclusions of each of the articles in question, if these are the arguments being used to come to the conclusions, someone needs to go back to school. From the first article regarding the relative size of human impacts, this quote (and it is in context)
"It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions."
tells me that the author has never seen the Vostock ice core records of CO2 levels.
The article about doing something about climate change is the usual destroy the economy stuff. Given that the article does not differentiate between human caused climate change and natural climate change gives one pause.
The higher level of CO2 doesn't increase plant growth article has these insightful things to say in proving that CO2 doesn't boost plant growth. Again, these are in context. Read the articles if you don't think they are.
"Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit." and "These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent."
Just to be clear, there is a very strong case that human emissions are significant enough to matter. The article you quote is clueless as to what that case is. Those New Scientist articles are horrible. They are horrible because they are so easily rebutted. If I were a "denier", I would encourage everyone to read them. As Napolean said, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Actually, there are very strict rules that absolutely require them to publish every single bit of information. In Canada, it is called National Instrument 43-101. In the US, there are similar laws. Search for "Bre-X" for the why. Search the laws at the Securities and Exchange commission for US equivalents, that are as strict.
Of course prior to becoming sequestered in said rock formations, the CO2 was part of the atmosphere. Must be something in the geological record of the massive runaway global warming that had to have occured before CO2 became coal and oil. Those conglomerate rocks couldn't have come from continental glaciers when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. Or would that too be "consistent with climate models"?
Are you suggesting that Exxon Mobil gets more in subsidy than they pay in taxes? From the Exxon Mobil corporate documents (look it up if you think I made these up), and note that these are only sales taxes, not including corporate income tax, payroll taxes (in Canada, about 25% of the gross salary of an employee), royalties to the government of the country they produce in, income tax of employees, etc., etc.
(1) Sales and other operating revenue include sales-based taxes of $28,547 million for 2010, $25,936 million for 2009, $34,508 million for 2008, $31,728 for 2007,
and $30,381 for 2006. (Sec 1:10, Summary Annual Report, 2010)
Total taxes paid in 2010 were about $86 BILLION. So you are saying that Exxon is paid more than $80 billion a year from the government? Shell, BP, Chevron and Total too? They pay similar taxes as Exxon. That is close to half a TRILLION dollars in taxes, every year, probably more when you add in the lessor companies.
You do realize that many of the data points used to produce the 'hockey stick' graph were withheld for extended periods don't you? The scientists involved actively refused to provide that data for quite some time. When the data was eventually revealed, it was reluctant at best. By your standards, Dr. Jones at East Anglia University, who refused to provide data, citing 'confidentiality agreements' that he also refused to provide should be ignored as a quack. There are copious other examples. Should we be ridiculing these people as quacks?
Is English your first language? Science does not need to be based on faith for people to have faith in science. Science is hard. Most people are not capable of undertaking even the simplest of scientific endeavours. Most people have to trust what a scientist says because they can't fully understand what they are saying. Trust without knowledge is faith. All moronic concepts I'm sure.
Nothing in my second paragraph is "anti-Global Warming". I can and have explained the greenhouse effect and the contribution of CO2 to that effect. I can and have explained why such distractions as the greater contribution of water are not relevant.
My point is that the serious allegations revealed by the e-mails have been covered up by those who should have been shining a light on them. And the entire "proxy" thing should drive any true scientist to distraction. Two things are alleged to reflect the same property. I.E. tree rings and other types of temperature record. For a statistically significant period, they do not agree, indeed, they diverge. I would posit that this is sufficient to conclude they do not reflect the same property. That is, the evidence as published supports the assertions that tree ring proxies are not suitable as a measure of temperature. The ongoing effort to support this distraction is offensive to me. It provides ammunition to all of the anti-science nutbars throughout the world and the longer we avoid acknowledging this, the worse it gets. Whether or not AGW is real and serious is not dependant on the hockey stick graph. Supporting that thing blindly is slowly and inexorably bringing all of science into disrepute.
Either you are misinformed or you are being disingenuous.
"Gene", i.e. Eugene Wahl has provided congressional testimony that he did indeed delete emails related to the inclusion of off the record, unpublished, unreviewed material to counter on the record, published and reviewed material in the IPCC AR4. It was not a fit of pique, but rather an acknowledged action carried out by a number of people.
Tree ring proxies do indeed agree with other proxy measurements at many times. As you point out yourself, they do NOT reflect other proxy measurements after 1960. This is also acknowledged by Trenberth et. al. Just because a measurement coincides with another measurement for a period of time does not mean it is a valid substitution. Indeed, being able to show a period when the two diverge is usually sufficient evidence that the two are not measuring the same thing.
The assertion that Jones could not provide data because it was "proprietary" is pernicious. You conflate this by alleging "private corporations". Neither is relevant. If the data is not released, it cannot be verified. As you clearly know, there is still data that has not been released.
Not sure what "ridiculous fairy tales" I believe in. I can perform radiant heat transfer calculations and have done so professionally. I can provide a pretty good explanation of the greenhouse effect. I can provide pretty good explanations about how the fact that water is the greater cause of the effect, this is not relevant to the argument that increasing CO2 increases absorption of heat. I can explain quantitatively how increasing heat will increase temperature. As a scientist, I am not in doubt about AGW. I am however appalled by the actions of these people and even more appalled that more scientists aren't raising their voices in anger.
The teaching of creationism is gaining credence because of the ongoing reduction in the trust in science. If you think this is funny, you don't realize how severe that erosion is. Bible thumpers tell us the earth is 6,000 years old. Idiots tell us that plate techtonics is wrong. Bimbos make life threatening, yet influential pronouncements on vaccination policy. The list of such moronic musings grows every day. Today, we have very large portions of the planet's population that strongly believe in many things that science has long ago shown to be bunk. Fundamentalist religious beliefs are not confined to the US or christianity.
A number of years ago, I noted here that, as scientists, we had better be right about global warming, because if we are wrong, science itself will suffer. Since that time, we have "scientists" destroying records of behaviour, lest they be "misconstrued", "scientists", with straight faces, saying that an instrument for recording temperature (tree rings) should be believed, even if they do not reflect temperature when calibrated (the divergence problem which is what "hide the decline" is all about). "Scientists" who regularly refuse to provide the basic data that they use to come to conclusions. Were these "scientists" employed as geophysicists for "big oil" in Canada, they would be breaking securities law that requires adherence to NI-43-101.
No wonder people are losing faith in science. Science has broken faith with us.
How about we call it food. Because that is what we are using to create this stuff. Sure, you can produce these things with waste, but corn is better and more efficient and hence much more profitable. As such, this will divert food from (literally) starving people to powering engines. Good luck identifying whether it is from corn or kelp. There is a perfectly good substitute for using food to create the fuel to power your car. It is called crude oil.
Henry Ford refused to pay George Seldon royalties for his patent for a "Road Engine". Up to that time, every car manufacturer in the United States paid Seldon a royalty. Seldon would today be called a patent troll. The only reason Ford won in court was the vehicle patented by Seldon did not function when finally built according to the idea that Seldon had patented. Had Seldon patented a "Thing with wheels on it and an engine" Ford probably would have lost.
Ideas aren't supposed to be patentable, specific inventions are...
Patents are words on paper. They are nothing more and nothing less than ideas. Specific inventions are manifestations of ideas. It is the idea that is patented, not the thing.
This patent was filed in 1996. This means it will expire in 2016. At that time, it will go into the public domain and be available for all to use as they see fit, free of charge. This is, in my opinion, superior to copyright. Copyright lasts forever (practically, if not literally). If Allen had copyright, rather than patent, the protection would last much longer. (An American law expert can confirm whether patent expiration timing starts from time of filing or time of grant).
Gov't regulating lead-free drinking water is not an attack on liberty.
This is a common conclusion based on the misconception that regulation of pollution is intended to reduce pollution.
The original purpose of discharge limit regulations was to provide permission to pollute. This was a substitute for property rights which were making it impossible for big government to pollute (via municipal sewage) and big business to pollute. So government reduced our liberty by reducing our property rights in order to facilitate pollution and commerce. So yes, regulating lead-free drinking water is an attack on liberty AND a means of increasing the amount of lead that can be discharged (there has never, in the history of the earth, been an untreated source of water that was or is 100% lead free, you just need a good enough analysis method to find it). The loss of liberty in western society has been a death by a thousand cuts. The efficacy of which are improved by propagandists who tell us that regulation is for our good, not theirs.
Statistics are "massaged". Data is data. I work in mining in Canada, like Steve McIntyre. In promoting a prospective mine in Canada, you are required to make everything available. The original notes written when a drill core comes up, the method used to split the core, the numbers from the ICP that are used to come up with an assay (including calibration and calculation methods). Everything. Even the remnant samples must be archived for potential independent verification. That is data. You also have to follow very specific methods of analyzing (massaging) that data. For reference to all of this, google: NI43-101. That climate scientists can't follow procedures that moose pasture salesmen must follow speaks volumes. Also, I'm not sure what labs you work in, but I work with raw data all the time. Particularly when initiating a QA program. Those start with raw data.
I suspect this thread will become populated with any number of "thereottabealaw" comments. This is not the answer. The purpose of facebook is to provide to marketers as much information about you as legally possible. But it isn't the marketers that will keep facebook policies skewed towards "openness" and away from privacy. Government, by its nature, is in favour of knowing as much about you as they can. Thus, governments like facebook. Many companies, such as insurance companies, like to be able to go to facebook and find out as much about you as they can. They LOVE facebook.
So in addition to stalkers and thieves, who already find facebook to be a treasure trove, there are some big time money interests that will make sure that there never is a law. If you are on facebook, everything your "friends" write and post about you is searchable and can be related back to you and your profile. If you are OK with this, more power to you. One day, there will be something that you don't want shared. If you stay on facebook. . . well tough luck buddy, it's shared.
You don't seem too familiar with the various types of intellectual property and how they are regulated. Copyright is not patent. You can indeed copyright a recipe. You can also patent it. The entire drug industry depends on it. The more specific the patent, the easier it is for someone to make a trivial change to the recipe and outflank the patent. As such, it is advisable to make one's patent application as general as possible. Whether you believe that is bad or good, it is the law. As for the specifics of toner cartridges, I'd be very surprised if any particular cartridge was only covered by one patent.
I mean really? Every printer of quality I've seen in the last 3 years (and I use the word 'quality' loosely) has been an Xerox, HP or Canon. Maybe they should spend some time building things people want to buy. Could be wrong of course. Often am.
Please don't 'help' the fight to bring some balance to the AGW debate. And to answer your question. Almost certainly not.
What you are discussing is one of many so called proxies. Don't know what "proxy" means in that connotation, as a thermometer meets that definition. It too is a proxy for measuring temperature. Why not just say thermometers? Anyway. Radioisotopes are one means of estimating temperature. There are others. Some more robust than others. In the area of skeptical science, versus unskeptical science, you will find that the more informed the debater, the more subtle the argument.
The trouble that this paper and many others illustrate is the HUGE ignorance of proper statistical methods in the scientific community. Such things like a students T test are - statistically speaking - simple. Yet they are often beyond many in the science community. Thus, there is a tendency for misuse of technique, which in turn leads to divergent interpretations of what a data set means. The legal profession is even worse, as they don't care about the laws of mathematics. In a court, you are not required to answer to a professor of mathematics, hence you can assert anything. If your opponent doesn't have the necessary skill or knowledge to call BS on what you say, you can win an argument with a completely baseless assertion. Take an example. A man is fired for missing work on a Monday. The company's lawyer states "Fully 40% of this employee's absenteeism occurs on Mondays and Fridays. It is appalling that this weekend extending behaviour continues, and we must do something about it". The mathematically challenged lawyer for the poor sap can't see the issue with this and lets it stand.
JE (always wanted to use that example. May have the justification a bit!)
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that Mullar was never even close to a skeptic and his co-author (Dr. J. Curry, a prominent climate researcher who would hardly be called a skeptic either) is disputing his comments about what the data shows. The great thing about the BEST project is all of the data and methods are available. Unlike Hadley CRU who have lost their original data, and still refuse to provide the various Ural data sets.Or GISS that won't provide the method(s??) used to 'normalize' their data. With the BEST project, we can see things like this comparison of what Mullar released to the press and what the data actually shows. Note that the two graphs have different time scales on the x axis, which is not quite cricket, but the point is valid.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
No, it is more likely that Mullar, who has always been on the mainstream side, knew his data set would show 10 years of no warming while CO2 increased. This would be fuel to the fire of climate skeptics, so he pre-empted with a press release stating that the data shows one thing when it actually shows the exact opposite.
Given the number of true believers here (people I equate with the deniers on the skeptic side), I am wondering how long this post, all of which is factual and can be confirmed with relative ease, will be modded "troll". Seems to happen to all posts that are in any way skeptical.
Also, ocean level increase seems to have reversed itself. If this too continues, will the alarmists finally admit that maybe things are not worse than we thought? Personally, I believe that it IS worse than we think. We are on the cusp of the next ice age and instead of figuring out how to live in a much cooler world we are maniacally doing everything in our power to make it cooler. Of course the people who are advocating this are the same people who tell us the solution to the debt crisis is to borrow more money.
The fact that human activity is the source of most of the CO2 increase has been documented. CO2 outputs can and have been measured, and there is no doubt that human activity is the cause of the increase. That *you* can doubt this shows that you are being influenced by the denialists. We are rapidly approaching the point where we will be unable to prevent global temperatures from rising higher than they have ever been during the existence of humans. Do you really think it likely that we will do *better* in an environment that we did not evolve to live in?
I see you didn't quote the parent. You are talking about increased CO2 being a result of human activity. The original poster was talking about human activity impacting climate. I would be someone you would call a denier. Here are things I'm sure of. Please point out what I'm denying.
1.Global Warming is real.
2.Humans have impacted climate, particularly by gaseous pollutants. Methane will have an impact on climate, CFC’s really do chew up the ozone layer. SO2 has cooled the world. (and probably accounts for the cooling from 1945 to 1975 and may account for the flat lining over the last 10 years)
3.The “greenhouse effect” or the increase in atmospheric temperature due to absorption of electromagnetic radiation, is real.
4.CO2 is the second largest contributor to the greenhouse effect.
5. Though water is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, the CO2 affect is cumulative to this, so it is important.
If you get your information from realclimate, or worse New Scientist, the fact that most deniers agree with all these points is probably news to you. But they do. So you can see why denier is not only a derogatory term, it is also wrong. Skeptics yes. Deniers? Not so much.
Sorry, Couldn't help but reply.
You really need to do some thinking of your own. Without questioning the conclusions of each of the articles in question, if these are the arguments being used to come to the conclusions, someone needs to go back to school. From the first article regarding the relative size of human impacts, this quote (and it is in context)
"It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions."
tells me that the author has never seen the Vostock ice core records of CO2 levels.
The article about doing something about climate change is the usual destroy the economy stuff. Given that the article does not differentiate between human caused climate change and natural climate change gives one pause.
The higher level of CO2 doesn't increase plant growth article has these insightful things to say in proving that CO2 doesn't boost plant growth. Again, these are in context. Read the articles if you don't think they are.
"Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit."
and
"These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent."
Just to be clear, there is a very strong case that human emissions are significant enough to matter. The article you quote is clueless as to what that case is. Those New Scientist articles are horrible. They are horrible because they are so easily rebutted. If I were a "denier", I would encourage everyone to read them. As Napolean said, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Actually, there are very strict rules that absolutely require them to publish every single bit of information. In Canada, it is called National Instrument 43-101. In the US, there are similar laws. Search for "Bre-X" for the why. Search the laws at the Securities and Exchange commission for US equivalents, that are as strict.
The absurd release schedule is why I stopped using it. Seeing as I'm "IT" for many friends and family, that means they've all stopped using it too.
Just sayin
Of course prior to becoming sequestered in said rock formations, the CO2 was part of the atmosphere. Must be something in the geological record of the massive runaway global warming that had to have occured before CO2 became coal and oil. Those conglomerate rocks couldn't have come from continental glaciers when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. Or would that too be "consistent with climate models"?
I suppose we could cut down some rainforest if we don't want to use food. That would still be green wouldn't it?
Note that this gasification technology would work with coal too.
There's a lot more and cheaper coal than "renewable / green" sources (previously called "food").
Just sayin.
Are you suggesting that Exxon Mobil gets more in subsidy than they pay in taxes? From the Exxon Mobil corporate documents (look it up if you think I made these up), and note that these are only sales taxes, not including corporate income tax, payroll taxes (in Canada, about 25% of the gross salary of an employee), royalties to the government of the country they produce in, income tax of employees, etc., etc.
(1) Sales and other operating revenue include sales-based taxes of $28,547 million for 2010, $25,936 million for 2009, $34,508 million for 2008, $31,728 for 2007, and $30,381 for 2006. (Sec 1:10, Summary Annual Report, 2010)
Total taxes paid in 2010 were about $86 BILLION. So you are saying that Exxon is paid more than $80 billion a year from the government? Shell, BP, Chevron and Total too? They pay similar taxes as Exxon. That is close to half a TRILLION dollars in taxes, every year, probably more when you add in the lessor companies.
What are you smoking?
You do realize that many of the data points used to produce the 'hockey stick' graph were withheld for extended periods don't you? The scientists involved actively refused to provide that data for quite some time. When the data was eventually revealed, it was reluctant at best. By your standards, Dr. Jones at East Anglia University, who refused to provide data, citing 'confidentiality agreements' that he also refused to provide should be ignored as a quack. There are copious other examples. Should we be ridiculing these people as quacks?
Is English your first language? Science does not need to be based on faith for people to have faith in science. Science is hard. Most people are not capable of undertaking even the simplest of scientific endeavours. Most people have to trust what a scientist says because they can't fully understand what they are saying. Trust without knowledge is faith. All moronic concepts I'm sure.
Nothing in my second paragraph is "anti-Global Warming". I can and have explained the greenhouse effect and the contribution of CO2 to that effect. I can and have explained why such distractions as the greater contribution of water are not relevant.
My point is that the serious allegations revealed by the e-mails have been covered up by those who should have been shining a light on them. And the entire "proxy" thing should drive any true scientist to distraction. Two things are alleged to reflect the same property. I.E. tree rings and other types of temperature record. For a statistically significant period, they do not agree, indeed, they diverge. I would posit that this is sufficient to conclude they do not reflect the same property. That is, the evidence as published supports the assertions that tree ring proxies are not suitable as a measure of temperature. The ongoing effort to support this distraction is offensive to me. It provides ammunition to all of the anti-science nutbars throughout the world and the longer we avoid acknowledging this, the worse it gets. Whether or not AGW is real and serious is not dependant on the hockey stick graph. Supporting that thing blindly is slowly and inexorably bringing all of science into disrepute.
Either you are misinformed or you are being disingenuous.
"Gene", i.e. Eugene Wahl has provided congressional testimony that he did indeed delete emails related to the inclusion of off the record, unpublished, unreviewed material to counter on the record, published and reviewed material in the IPCC AR4. It was not a fit of pique, but rather an acknowledged action carried out by a number of people.
Tree ring proxies do indeed agree with other proxy measurements at many times. As you point out yourself, they do NOT reflect other proxy measurements after 1960. This is also acknowledged by Trenberth et. al. Just because a measurement coincides with another measurement for a period of time does not mean it is a valid substitution. Indeed, being able to show a period when the two diverge is usually sufficient evidence that the two are not measuring the same thing.
The assertion that Jones could not provide data because it was "proprietary" is pernicious. You conflate this by alleging "private corporations". Neither is relevant. If the data is not released, it cannot be verified. As you clearly know, there is still data that has not been released.
Not sure what "ridiculous fairy tales" I believe in. I can perform radiant heat transfer calculations and have done so professionally. I can provide a pretty good explanation of the greenhouse effect. I can provide pretty good explanations about how the fact that water is the greater cause of the effect, this is not relevant to the argument that increasing CO2 increases absorption of heat. I can explain quantitatively how increasing heat will increase temperature. As a scientist, I am not in doubt about AGW. I am however appalled by the actions of these people and even more appalled that more scientists aren't raising their voices in anger.
The teaching of creationism is gaining credence because of the ongoing reduction in the trust in science. If you think this is funny, you don't realize how severe that erosion is. Bible thumpers tell us the earth is 6,000 years old. Idiots tell us that plate techtonics is wrong. Bimbos make life threatening, yet influential pronouncements on vaccination policy. The list of such moronic musings grows every day. Today, we have very large portions of the planet's population that strongly believe in many things that science has long ago shown to be bunk. Fundamentalist religious beliefs are not confined to the US or christianity.
A number of years ago, I noted here that, as scientists, we had better be right about global warming, because if we are wrong, science itself will suffer. Since that time, we have "scientists" destroying records of behaviour, lest they be "misconstrued", "scientists", with straight faces, saying that an instrument for recording temperature (tree rings) should be believed, even if they do not reflect temperature when calibrated (the divergence problem which is what "hide the decline" is all about). "Scientists" who regularly refuse to provide the basic data that they use to come to conclusions. Were these "scientists" employed as geophysicists for "big oil" in Canada, they would be breaking securities law that requires adherence to NI-43-101.
No wonder people are losing faith in science. Science has broken faith with us.
And that ain't funny.
How about we call it food. Because that is what we are using to create this stuff. Sure, you can produce these things with waste, but corn is better and more efficient and hence much more profitable. As such, this will divert food from (literally) starving people to powering engines. Good luck identifying whether it is from corn or kelp. There is a perfectly good substitute for using food to create the fuel to power your car. It is called crude oil.
Cheers
JE
Henry Ford refused to pay George Seldon royalties for his patent for a "Road Engine". Up to that time, every car manufacturer in the United States paid Seldon a royalty. Seldon would today be called a patent troll. The only reason Ford won in court was the vehicle patented by Seldon did not function when finally built according to the idea that Seldon had patented. Had Seldon patented a "Thing with wheels on it and an engine" Ford probably would have lost.
Cheers
JE
Ideas aren't supposed to be patentable, specific inventions are...
Patents are words on paper. They are nothing more and nothing less than ideas. Specific inventions are manifestations of ideas. It is the idea that is patented, not the thing.
This patent was filed in 1996. This means it will expire in 2016. At that time, it will go into the public domain and be available for all to use as they see fit, free of charge. This is, in my opinion, superior to copyright. Copyright lasts forever (practically, if not literally). If Allen had copyright, rather than patent, the protection would last much longer. (An American law expert can confirm whether patent expiration timing starts from time of filing or time of grant).
Gov't regulating lead-free drinking water is not an attack on liberty.
This is a common conclusion based on the misconception that regulation of pollution is intended to reduce pollution.
The original purpose of discharge limit regulations was to provide permission to pollute. This was a substitute for property rights which were making it impossible for big government to pollute (via municipal sewage) and big business to pollute. So government reduced our liberty by reducing our property rights in order to facilitate pollution and commerce. So yes, regulating lead-free drinking water is an attack on liberty AND a means of increasing the amount of lead that can be discharged (there has never, in the history of the earth, been an untreated source of water that was or is 100% lead free, you just need a good enough analysis method to find it). The loss of liberty in western society has been a death by a thousand cuts. The efficacy of which are improved by propagandists who tell us that regulation is for our good, not theirs.
Sorry Mate. You're very wrong.
Statistics are "massaged". Data is data. I work in mining in Canada, like Steve McIntyre. In promoting a prospective mine in Canada, you are required to make everything available. The original notes written when a drill core comes up, the method used to split the core, the numbers from the ICP that are used to come up with an assay (including calibration and calculation methods). Everything. Even the remnant samples must be archived for potential independent verification. That is data. You also have to follow very specific methods of analyzing (massaging) that data. For reference to all of this, google: NI43-101. That climate scientists can't follow procedures that moose pasture salesmen must follow speaks volumes. Also, I'm not sure what labs you work in, but I work with raw data all the time. Particularly when initiating a QA program. Those start with raw data.
I suspect this thread will become populated with any number of "thereottabealaw" comments. This is not the answer. The purpose of facebook is to provide to marketers as much information about you as legally possible. But it isn't the marketers that will keep facebook policies skewed towards "openness" and away from privacy. Government, by its nature, is in favour of knowing as much about you as they can. Thus, governments like facebook. Many companies, such as insurance companies, like to be able to go to facebook and find out as much about you as they can. They LOVE facebook.
So in addition to stalkers and thieves, who already find facebook to be a treasure trove, there are some big time money interests that will make sure that there never is a law. If you are on facebook, everything your "friends" write and post about you is searchable and can be related back to you and your profile. If you are OK with this, more power to you. One day, there will be something that you don't want shared. If you stay on facebook. . . well tough luck buddy, it's shared.
JE
You don't seem too familiar with the various types of intellectual property and how they are regulated. Copyright is not patent. You can indeed copyright a recipe. You can also patent it. The entire drug industry depends on it. The more specific the patent, the easier it is for someone to make a trivial change to the recipe and outflank the patent. As such, it is advisable to make one's patent application as general as possible. Whether you believe that is bad or good, it is the law. As for the specifics of toner cartridges, I'd be very surprised if any particular cartridge was only covered by one patent.
Cheers
JE
I mean really? Every printer of quality I've seen in the last 3 years (and I use the word 'quality' loosely) has been an Xerox, HP or Canon. Maybe they should spend some time building things people want to buy. Could be wrong of course. Often am.
JE
Please don't 'help' the fight to bring some balance to the AGW debate. And to answer your question. Almost certainly not.
What you are discussing is one of many so called proxies. Don't know what "proxy" means in that connotation, as a thermometer meets that definition. It too is a proxy for measuring temperature. Why not just say thermometers?
Anyway.
Radioisotopes are one means of estimating temperature. There are others. Some more robust than others. In the area of skeptical science, versus unskeptical science, you will find that the more informed the debater, the more subtle the argument.
Let the mod wars begin
JE
The trouble that this paper and many others illustrate is the HUGE ignorance of proper statistical methods in the scientific community. Such things like a students T test are - statistically speaking - simple. Yet they are often beyond many in the science community. Thus, there is a tendency for misuse of technique, which in turn leads to divergent interpretations of what a data set means. The legal profession is even worse, as they don't care about the laws of mathematics. In a court, you are not required to answer to a professor of mathematics, hence you can assert anything. If your opponent doesn't have the necessary skill or knowledge to call BS on what you say, you can win an argument with a completely baseless assertion. Take an example. A man is fired for missing work on a Monday. The company's lawyer states "Fully 40% of this employee's absenteeism occurs on Mondays and Fridays. It is appalling that this weekend extending behaviour continues, and we must do something about it". The mathematically challenged lawyer for the poor sap can't see the issue with this and lets it stand.
JE (always wanted to use that example. May have the justification a bit!)