The discussion here is about consensus, which is and has always been a vital part of the scientific process,
Nope, you're wrong, science is about the ability to reproduce results. If you can't explain why something is true in enough detail that they can reproduce your results, then it's not science.
allowing the community as a whole to move on and produce useful results, even if a small minority of its members disagree.
You don't need to wait for the community to agree to move on. You just need to look at the evidence and decide to move on.
Consensus is not science. It's politics.
It's basically a two-part solution: you need to replace CO2 producing cars, and you need to replace CO2 producing power plants.
Electric cars are one half of the solution, and since not all power is generated by coal/oil, an improvement.
Indeed, doing deep research on a topic often involved going to several different libraries across the state, and if you didn't live in a state with a nice library system, tough.
That's a theoretical possibility, and hopefully it happens.
For right now, it's very difficult to get a book in front of a large audience without the help of a publisher. The publisher has all the connections, all the advertising techniques and all the knowledge which authors lack.
It really is similar to writing an app for the iTunes store: even if your app is good, usually the one with better advertising will become more popular.
Now you're starting to get into scientific arguments instead of appeals to authority, so that's good, keep it up. You've pointed to a specific point, and have given a body of evidence to support it (as opposed to saying, "lots of people believe it, so it must be true").
Now the scientific conversation can continue by saying, "The ipcc report rests heavily on climate models. Since it's recently been shown that much work needs to be done before they can accurately model hydroclimate variability, the ipcc report needs to be updated."
Then we can have counter arguments, and run experiments to see which side is correct. And that is science.
Which is specifically talking about extreme weather events, and not what was being discussed in the original link.
Did you even read your link? It talks about flooding, which is an extreme weather event.
Your link also talks about sea levels, and global temperatures and sea levels, which are part of the hydroclimate mentioned in papers I linked to earlier.
Either you can't think, or you aren't thinking about what you are writing. That's not a snide remark, that's an observation.
That's true, it's why authors often make only 2% of the total book price in royalties: because if the publishers (aggregators, etc) didn't advertise the product, they would make even less money.
It's really sad how important the gatekeepers are for content production (and this includes things like the iTunes app store: good luck getting people to buy your app).
I'm guessing that the type of people who fly drones near airports are also the type of people who don't read safety instructions, or think about safety ever, really.
I feel like going through the effort of re-filling a k-cup kind of defeats the purpose (which is convenience). At that point, you might as well get an espresso machine.
Go is a game which is played with perfect information and clearly defined rules. It is a fascinating problem in its own right but it is not the same problem as recognizing a face or an object in a purely arbitrary setting.
And yet playing the game took longer to solve than image recognition.
Slashdot Mirror
However, in our game of empires, we need them desperately,
Not really anymore. The US is the world's third largest producer of crude oil, and produces more than it uses.
In short, Europe and China might need Saudi Arabia, but the US doesn't.
"I don't agree with a lot of his policy ideas, but if he lives up to his word on just that one point by making things transparent, I
That was the promise I was hoping he would keep, too. Would have been a lasting change in the world. Oh well.
The discussion here is about consensus, which is and has always been a vital part of the scientific process,
Nope, you're wrong, science is about the ability to reproduce results. If you can't explain why something is true in enough detail that they can reproduce your results, then it's not science.
allowing the community as a whole to move on and produce useful results, even if a small minority of its members disagree.
You don't need to wait for the community to agree to move on. You just need to look at the evidence and decide to move on.
Consensus is not science. It's politics.
I see that map you linked to, but I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make from it. Of course, Holland is famous for windmills.....
Microsoft's Research arms are so product focused that very little long-term groundbreaking science comes out of there these days.
It's actually kind of amazing how little good stuff comes out of Microsoft research, considering how much money they throw at it.
Big business profits
Man, all of us profit from that stuff.
It's basically a two-part solution: you need to replace CO2 producing cars, and you need to replace CO2 producing power plants.
Electric cars are one half of the solution, and since not all power is generated by coal/oil, an improvement.
Indeed, doing deep research on a topic often involved going to several different libraries across the state, and if you didn't live in a state with a nice library system, tough.
That's a theoretical possibility, and hopefully it happens.
For right now, it's very difficult to get a book in front of a large audience without the help of a publisher. The publisher has all the connections, all the advertising techniques and all the knowledge which authors lack.
It really is similar to writing an app for the iTunes store: even if your app is good, usually the one with better advertising will become more popular.
Now you're starting to get into scientific arguments instead of appeals to authority, so that's good, keep it up. You've pointed to a specific point, and have given a body of evidence to support it (as opposed to saying, "lots of people believe it, so it must be true").
Now the scientific conversation can continue by saying, "The ipcc report rests heavily on climate models. Since it's recently been shown that much work needs to be done before they can accurately model hydroclimate variability, the ipcc report needs to be updated."
Then we can have counter arguments, and run experiments to see which side is correct. And that is science.
Which is specifically talking about extreme weather events, and not what was being discussed in the original link.
Did you even read your link? It talks about flooding, which is an extreme weather event.
Your link also talks about sea levels, and global temperatures and sea levels, which are part of the hydroclimate mentioned in papers I linked to earlier.
Either you can't think, or you aren't thinking about what you are writing. That's not a snide remark, that's an observation.
This means that authors no longer need to spend any money on marketing if they don't want to.
Good luck getting anyone to buy your book if they don't hear about it, though.
That's true, it's why authors often make only 2% of the total book price in royalties: because if the publishers (aggregators, etc) didn't advertise the product, they would make even less money.
It's really sad how important the gatekeepers are for content production (and this includes things like the iTunes app store: good luck getting people to buy your app).
Very Real Potential Harm is the same as no actual harm. So good.
Interacting with computers is one of the easiest things to get a human to do.
Yes, that is exactly what I said.
I'm guessing that the type of people who fly drones near airports are also the type of people who don't read safety instructions, or think about safety ever, really.
I feel like going through the effort of re-filling a k-cup kind of defeats the purpose (which is convenience). At that point, you might as well get an espresso machine.
I too have read a lot of it, and I'm referring mostly to WG1 as a whole, and the many papers cited there.
WG1 never says that AGW is worth worrying about.
Here's another one.
That's true, I should have said, "You don't file to get a copyright"
Neither is the game.
Interacting with humans is one of the easiest things to get a computer to do man, lay off the pot, it's affecting your brain.
Go is a game which is played with perfect information and clearly defined rules. It is a fascinating problem in its own right but it is not the same problem as recognizing a face or an object in a purely arbitrary setting.
And yet playing the game took longer to solve than image recognition.
btw I really like your comment here, good stuff.
"we don't just build our cities on fault-lines, we also tend to rebuild them, in the same place, but no more robust, time and time again."
I can't speak for everywhere, but in California, the construction standards are much higher after the 1989 earthquake.
Boston, however, is in serious danger because of so many tall buildings built of brick (and other reasons).