India has fought 3 wars with Pakistan in modern times and directly threatened them with nuclear attack on several occasions, they have been at each others throats since they kicked the British out, currently they barely tolerate each other.
Realclimate's FAQ is a good place to start looking if you're interested in climate models (data sources are on the strip menu at the top of the page). The site is run by people who are internationally recognized as being at the top of their field, the articles are both understandable to the layman and highly regarded in the climate science community. You could also try the IPCC data center. The IPCC don't do science, they periodically gather a mountain of recently published research on the subject in one place and condense it into reports, the ~2500 scientists who do this are not paid by the IPCC, they (or their university) donate the time and effort spent on this rigorous and tedious task. The "working group 1" report is the scientific meat but it requires a lot of chewing.
Yes, you are. You're trolling, even if you're telling yourself you're not.
There's a world of difference between trolling and being blunt. I am being deliberately blunt.
You're arguing your "side" as though it's established and solid fact.
Yes, and?
But whenever contrary evidence has been presented, you have refused to give it serious consideration.
Read my other responses in this thread, it is you who is refusing to consider that your "contra-evidence" was thoroughly debunked long ago, the "back radiation" thing your banging on about below is currently ranked 60-something on the list of most popular bogus AGW arguments at skepticalscience.com.
So who is the Young Earther here?
I though I made that clear, it's you! The lengthy thread below has sufficiently demonstrated that diagnosis. I'm just trying to remind you that it is curable via self-skepticisim.
explain how radiation that is of a LOWER "black-body temperature" will be absorbed by a body of a HIGHER black-body temperature.
A much harder challenge is to find a credible climate scientist who is making that claim. For your "facts of life" edification here's an independent analysis of Roy Spencer, of course it's just a remarkable coincidence he belongs to the very same no-think tanks as Anthony Watts, right? While on the subject of coincidence, these are the same no-think tanks who (for a price*) supplied "scientists", "scientific reports", and "marketing advice" to the tobacco industry (showing smoking to be harmless) and at least one creationists group (showing evolution contradicts the 2nd law of TD).
* - If you want to baffle people with bullshit I highly recommend the expert propagandists at the Heartland Institute, they are extremely effective, surprisingly cheap, and appear to specialize in misinterpreting the 2nd law of TD for personal profit.
Repeat: Please explain how energy -- radiative only, without conductive or convective assistance -- can travel from colder to warmer.
Jane, I'm sure you will agree that Science is more than a grab-bag of factoids. So with that in mind, please explain why you wear a jacket in cold weather, or a blanket at night? - Like wool, CO2 is a thermal insulator, it has the effect of "cooling" the upper atmosphere (or in the case of a blanket, cooling the bedroom) and warming the lower atmosphere (the bed). Clouds do exactly the same thing because H20 is a greenhouse gas (ie: a thermal insulator), As an Aussie I can tell you from 50 odd years of first hand experience that overcast summer nights are sleepless nights unless you have the air-con on full blast, we even call it a "blanket of cloud".
But here's the real problem with your argument, climate scientists are NOT claiming what you believe they are, in other words the well known "back radiation" canard is a strawman argument. Now ask yourself, who built that strawman for you and how can you avoid that kind of trap in the future?
You may think of me as a troll if you wish but my intention is to educate and promote genuine skepticisim, I "pick on you" from time to time because I believe you're intelligent, genuine, and misinformed.
It's not really "re-entry", 61 miles is at the "edge of space" rather than in space. In fact the original spacesuits for the Mercury project were tested by some guy in a helium balloon floating at a similar height. There was no way to land the balloon so he made a planned parachute jump while still wearing the suit. Even though he had to free fall for over 90% of the drop his velocity peaked around the speed of sound, which is pretty fast for a parachuting but still way to slow to burn up. The only thing novel about this project are the jet packs, but they've been promising those for a long time.
Windows has it's own stable of scripting languages pre-installed, but I would love to see it include python. It's perfect for scripting automated builds and other cross platform tasks (after you get the versioning issues sorted;). Also I get a kick from telling people I have been "playing with my python all day".
I left HS in 1976, calculators were banned at most schools but it wasn't much of a problem because they were very expensive. My dad was an engineer and his company bought him a HP21C calculator for work. To use it I had to learn RPN from the manual. Dad recently found it in the back of a cupboard, he cleaned out the mess the corroded battery had made, got it working again, and gave it to me for Christmas, great conversation piece.
My first "real" computer with a true programming language was a second hand Apple IIe in the 80's, I learned Apple basic from manuals, the library, and magazines (Byte magazine and others published lots of example source code in those days). I think the internet has taken much of the leg work out self teaching all sorts of subjects, information has never been so easy to obtain.
My initial motivation for buying the Apple was that I had read about Conway' game of life in and old SciAm magazine at the library and was fascinated by it, spending hours and hours "playing" by hand on graph paper, it took me a week to figure out how to get the computer to do it. The guy I bought it from was floored when I showed him what I had done with it in the first week. A few years later he was amongst a handful of workmates at the factory who encouraged me into going to uni and taking up programing professionally. I swapped the factory job for a more flexible (and less profitable) taxi driving job and graduated in 1991, with 20/20 hindsight it's one of the best decisions I ever made. However the fact that I graduated at the perfect time to take advantage of the great IT gold rush of the 90's, was pure luck.
I think the hardest problem for most people (especially 20-somethings) is figuring out what they want to do for a living, I was in the same boat until I fully realized I could turn my strange hobby into an interesting and profitable career, being treated like a minor celebrity during the boom times of the 90's was an unexpected bonus.
FB is viewed by many people as some kind of privately owned global public utility, it's a naive but not unreasonable POV. It's no secret this "new kind of service" is forcing governments to re-interpret and re-write laws.
I'm not religious, but the best option is the golden rule. If you can't follow this simple rule when you think nobody is watching then your moral compass needs some adjustment. When you do fuck up (and you will because everybody's moral compass wobbles) the best option is to come clean and (if possible) make a genuine attempt to recompense your victim, if nothing else your genuine remorse will be taken into account when you're sentenced.
Of course if you have strong sociopathic tendencies the golden rule makes no sense, and "not getting caught" may appear to be the best option.
This reasoning has never sat well with me, it's common knowledge the mobsters were in bed with the newly formed FBI during prohibition and had many high ranking "friends" throughout the judicial system for decades. A more likely explanation for the failure to convict is that the non-stick mobsters had their hands up the arse of the court, Sicily has a long history of the same problem. Mobsters don't adhere to the principle of a fair trial and will only come unstuck when they are confronted with an authority they can not intimidate (eg: the IRS). If you want to see a more extreme example of mobsters usurping authority, look no further than the drug lords of Mexico.
At the end of the day, one of the fundamental principles of western law is that it is better to allow the guilty to keep their freedom than it is to deny freedom to the innocent. This of course assumes all trials are fair trials (to both sides).
As others have said, if a lot of the charges were indeed bogus, a defense attorney should have been able to get them thrown out.
If they are bogus they should not be there in the first place, according to a thousand years of western law it is not ok to throw "bogus" legal obstacles and distractions at the (presumed innocent) defendant.
A significant part of the problem is that (US) prosecutors are judged by the number of convictions they obtain rather than the quality of the charges they lay. When implemented this becomes pile up 10 charges, plea bargain guilty for one, bingo another brownie point on the prosecutors score card, collect enough points and you are moved up a rung on the judicial career ladder..
The US simply takes plea bargaining to the extreme and turns it into plea bulling, in the same way Fred Phelps takes free speech to the extreme and turns it into harassment. Other nations seem to be able to (largely) avoid plea bullying whilst still leaving the option of a plea bargain open to the defendant.
US law is firmly rooted in English common law and yet a random person in the UK (or indeed all of the EU) is ~7X less likely to be incarcerated, and the figures don't look that much better when comparing the US to China. The main reason for the imbalance is that the US has 500K prisoners from the drug war alone, the EU with nearly twice the population has a total of 600K prisoners for ALL crimes.
There is no sane explanation for these glaring differences other than "culture".
Also the original geenpeace was founded by scientists who wanted to apply scientific principles to environmental policy, many of it's founders left when the hollow men took over and started running anti-science campaigns against (say) chlorhinated water in the early 90's. The WWF is still a very respectable bunch of tree huggers, David Attenbourough recently credited them with "saving the Galapogous islands".
In Oz, the number plate is the "medallion", they are limited but privately traded and currently worth around $500k per cab, people who have them will never want to change the limit. Dispatch was a quasi-authority, the board was composed of govt reps and private operators, they basically set prices, etc, they don't specify the make of car but here in Melbourne it must be yellow. The flagfall fee was supposedly to pay for bookings via the dispatch center. Limo's work the same here, they must be pre-booked. All this was 25yrs ago, dispatch technology has changed a lot since then, good drivers (cab or limo) seem to rely more on their mobile phone than their radio these days.
"If he/she keeps that private and nobody ever figures it out, and his math and physics is solid, no problem with it."
In all honesty, though, I rather doubt you will find many Young Earthers who otherwise demonstrate solid grasps of math and physics... since math and physics pretty much rule out the Young Earth hypothesis.
In fairness I suppose that in large part it's more just a failure or refusal to examine the actual evidence. But in some ways that's just as bad.
I'm curious Jane, what's your job? - I only ask because on the subject of AGW your "grasp of math and physics" is just as far away from well established science as those of a YEC. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I firmly believe nobody is immune to self delusion, 35yrs ago I was totally convinced Uri Geller was genuine, after all he "fixed my watch" by staring into the TV for 30 seconds. In 1980 I was interested enough in climate change to pick up a book (about tress) and start following the subject, due to a mixture of ignorance and deliberate misinformation campaigns I remained unconvinced CO2 was a serious problem for almost a decade after Hansen's now famous Senate testimony and the establishment of the IPCC.
Having been a victim of at least one case of severe self delusion, I can attest to the fact it is really easy to spot in others and really hard to see in yourself, this is especially true if you are a "smart person", most (honest) magicians will tell you "smart people" are counter-intuitively the easiest to fool, reason being they carry more prior assumptions than others as to how the universe ticks, it means the focus of their attention is more predictable and therefore more easily redirected.
As an independent observer who also feels obliged to pontificate on the social utility of the scientific method and the role of skepticism in it, I think that both yourself and the YEC cling to your contrarian views because you have neglected the most essential part of the art of skepticism, namely self-skepticism. The only scientific difference I see between a YEC's ideas on evolution and your ideas on AGW is the subject matter, but even that is similar since they are both heavily tilted towards geology and related Earth sciences.
Disclaimer: I offer this post as unwanted advice rather than an unwanted flame.
One post on a random website -no matter the content- is woefully inadequate information by which to judge someone.
Exactly, and if a prospective employer decides it's appropriate to judge you on a soundbite you should make certain that the prying bastard is the one who ends up feeling embarrassed and awkward. Don't even bother trying to defend whatever past behavior they are accusing you of, turn it around and make them defend their current behavior. You probably won't get the job, but nobody ever said principles are cheap.
Having said that I can also see that if someone self-identifies as a YEC, it disqualifies them from certain tasks. If someone has preyed on children in the past, it disqualifies them from working with children. For many jobs background checks are in fact proper due diligence, unfortunately there are a lot of self-important people who turn that genuine need into a disingenuous and hypocritical witch hunt.
Early 50's, 100kg, 6ft. I'm also able to recognize that I have the same instinctive bias toward (the not insignificant number) of people fatter than me. I don't know if other "cuddly" people have it or if it comes from my fit and fantastic youth ( one of the few "perks" of the "strong back, weak head" type of work I did back then ).
Studies have shown that the most common assumption is that fat people are lazy, undisciplined, unwilling to work hard, etc. -- not just in terms of health choices. Your comment is playing directly into that bias.
The message is I got is that if I want to be treated with respect I need to find a cuddly doctor, I'm guessing you already have an ego boosting slim one.
Slashdot Mirror
India has fought 3 wars with Pakistan in modern times and directly threatened them with nuclear attack on several occasions, they have been at each others throats since they kicked the British out, currently they barely tolerate each other.
I haven't seen any models for myself
Realclimate's FAQ is a good place to start looking if you're interested in climate models (data sources are on the strip menu at the top of the page). The site is run by people who are internationally recognized as being at the top of their field, the articles are both understandable to the layman and highly regarded in the climate science community. You could also try the IPCC data center. The IPCC don't do science, they periodically gather a mountain of recently published research on the subject in one place and condense it into reports, the ~2500 scientists who do this are not paid by the IPCC, they (or their university) donate the time and effort spent on this rigorous and tedious task. The "working group 1" report is the scientific meat but it requires a lot of chewing.
Yes, you are. You're trolling, even if you're telling yourself you're not.
There's a world of difference between trolling and being blunt. I am being deliberately blunt.
You're arguing your "side" as though it's established and solid fact.
Yes, and?
But whenever contrary evidence has been presented, you have refused to give it serious consideration.
Read my other responses in this thread, it is you who is refusing to consider that your "contra-evidence" was thoroughly debunked long ago, the "back radiation" thing your banging on about below is currently ranked 60-something on the list of most popular bogus AGW arguments at skepticalscience.com.
So who is the Young Earther here?
I though I made that clear, it's you! The lengthy thread below has sufficiently demonstrated that diagnosis. I'm just trying to remind you that it is curable via self-skepticisim.
explain how radiation that is of a LOWER "black-body temperature" will be absorbed by a body of a HIGHER black-body temperature.
A much harder challenge is to find a credible climate scientist who is making that claim. For your "facts of life" edification here's an independent analysis of Roy Spencer, of course it's just a remarkable coincidence he belongs to the very same no-think tanks as Anthony Watts, right? While on the subject of coincidence, these are the same no-think tanks who (for a price*) supplied "scientists", "scientific reports", and "marketing advice" to the tobacco industry (showing smoking to be harmless) and at least one creationists group (showing evolution contradicts the 2nd law of TD).
* - If you want to baffle people with bullshit I highly recommend the expert propagandists at the Heartland Institute, they are extremely effective, surprisingly cheap, and appear to specialize in misinterpreting the 2nd law of TD for personal profit.
Repeat: Please explain how energy -- radiative only, without conductive or convective assistance -- can travel from colder to warmer.
Jane, I'm sure you will agree that Science is more than a grab-bag of factoids. So with that in mind, please explain why you wear a jacket in cold weather, or a blanket at night? - Like wool, CO2 is a thermal insulator, it has the effect of "cooling" the upper atmosphere (or in the case of a blanket, cooling the bedroom) and warming the lower atmosphere (the bed). Clouds do exactly the same thing because H20 is a greenhouse gas (ie: a thermal insulator), As an Aussie I can tell you from 50 odd years of first hand experience that overcast summer nights are sleepless nights unless you have the air-con on full blast, we even call it a "blanket of cloud".
But here's the real problem with your argument, climate scientists are NOT claiming what you believe they are, in other words the well known "back radiation" canard is a strawman argument. Now ask yourself, who built that strawman for you and how can you avoid that kind of trap in the future?
You may think of me as a troll if you wish but my intention is to educate and promote genuine skepticisim, I "pick on you" from time to time because I believe you're intelligent, genuine, and misinformed.
This is one of the globalization problem
Not really, the same problem has existed since the first caveman took a dump upstream from his neighbors cave.
Yes, bitcoin is a legit currency.
However money laundering is not a legit activity.
Would you like a patch for your missing eye?
It's not really "re-entry", 61 miles is at the "edge of space" rather than in space. In fact the original spacesuits for the Mercury project were tested by some guy in a helium balloon floating at a similar height. There was no way to land the balloon so he made a planned parachute jump while still wearing the suit. Even though he had to free fall for over 90% of the drop his velocity peaked around the speed of sound, which is pretty fast for a parachuting but still way to slow to burn up. The only thing novel about this project are the jet packs, but they've been promising those for a long time.
Windows has it's own stable of scripting languages pre-installed, but I would love to see it include python. It's perfect for scripting automated builds and other cross platform tasks (after you get the versioning issues sorted ;). Also I get a kick from telling people I have been "playing with my python all day".
I left HS in 1976, calculators were banned at most schools but it wasn't much of a problem because they were very expensive. My dad was an engineer and his company bought him a HP21C calculator for work. To use it I had to learn RPN from the manual. Dad recently found it in the back of a cupboard, he cleaned out the mess the corroded battery had made, got it working again, and gave it to me for Christmas, great conversation piece.
My first "real" computer with a true programming language was a second hand Apple IIe in the 80's, I learned Apple basic from manuals, the library, and magazines (Byte magazine and others published lots of example source code in those days). I think the internet has taken much of the leg work out self teaching all sorts of subjects, information has never been so easy to obtain.
My initial motivation for buying the Apple was that I had read about Conway' game of life in and old SciAm magazine at the library and was fascinated by it, spending hours and hours "playing" by hand on graph paper, it took me a week to figure out how to get the computer to do it. The guy I bought it from was floored when I showed him what I had done with it in the first week. A few years later he was amongst a handful of workmates at the factory who encouraged me into going to uni and taking up programing professionally. I swapped the factory job for a more flexible (and less profitable) taxi driving job and graduated in 1991, with 20/20 hindsight it's one of the best decisions I ever made. However the fact that I graduated at the perfect time to take advantage of the great IT gold rush of the 90's, was pure luck.
I think the hardest problem for most people (especially 20-somethings) is figuring out what they want to do for a living, I was in the same boat until I fully realized I could turn my strange hobby into an interesting and profitable career, being treated like a minor celebrity during the boom times of the 90's was an unexpected bonus.
FB is viewed by many people as some kind of privately owned global public utility, it's a naive but not unreasonable POV. It's no secret this "new kind of service" is forcing governments to re-interpret and re-write laws.
I'm not religious, but the best option is the golden rule. If you can't follow this simple rule when you think nobody is watching then your moral compass needs some adjustment. When you do fuck up (and you will because everybody's moral compass wobbles) the best option is to come clean and (if possible) make a genuine attempt to recompense your victim, if nothing else your genuine remorse will be taken into account when you're sentenced.
Of course if you have strong sociopathic tendencies the golden rule makes no sense, and "not getting caught" may appear to be the best option.
This reasoning has never sat well with me, it's common knowledge the mobsters were in bed with the newly formed FBI during prohibition and had many high ranking "friends" throughout the judicial system for decades. A more likely explanation for the failure to convict is that the non-stick mobsters had their hands up the arse of the court, Sicily has a long history of the same problem. Mobsters don't adhere to the principle of a fair trial and will only come unstuck when they are confronted with an authority they can not intimidate (eg: the IRS). If you want to see a more extreme example of mobsters usurping authority, look no further than the drug lords of Mexico.
At the end of the day, one of the fundamental principles of western law is that it is better to allow the guilty to keep their freedom than it is to deny freedom to the innocent. This of course assumes all trials are fair trials (to both sides).
As others have said, if a lot of the charges were indeed bogus, a defense attorney should have been able to get them thrown out.
If they are bogus they should not be there in the first place, according to a thousand years of western law it is not ok to throw "bogus" legal obstacles and distractions at the (presumed innocent) defendant.
A significant part of the problem is that (US) prosecutors are judged by the number of convictions they obtain rather than the quality of the charges they lay. When implemented this becomes pile up 10 charges, plea bargain guilty for one, bingo another brownie point on the prosecutors score card, collect enough points and you are moved up a rung on the judicial career ladder..
The US simply takes plea bargaining to the extreme and turns it into plea bulling, in the same way Fred Phelps takes free speech to the extreme and turns it into harassment. Other nations seem to be able to (largely) avoid plea bullying whilst still leaving the option of a plea bargain open to the defendant.
US law is firmly rooted in English common law and yet a random person in the UK (or indeed all of the EU) is ~7X less likely to be incarcerated, and the figures don't look that much better when comparing the US to China. The main reason for the imbalance is that the US has 500K prisoners from the drug war alone, the EU with nearly twice the population has a total of 600K prisoners for ALL crimes.
There is no sane explanation for these glaring differences other than "culture".
Also the original geenpeace was founded by scientists who wanted to apply scientific principles to environmental policy, many of it's founders left when the hollow men took over and started running anti-science campaigns against (say) chlorhinated water in the early 90's. The WWF is still a very respectable bunch of tree huggers, David Attenbourough recently credited them with "saving the Galapogous islands".
Is it "mocking" to genuinely believe google glasses and shoe phones are gimmicks pioneered by Maxwell Smart?
They detect when you're listening to music with your eyes shut, sneak in, and load it via a thumb drive.
In Oz, the number plate is the "medallion", they are limited but privately traded and currently worth around $500k per cab, people who have them will never want to change the limit. Dispatch was a quasi-authority, the board was composed of govt reps and private operators, they basically set prices, etc, they don't specify the make of car but here in Melbourne it must be yellow. The flagfall fee was supposedly to pay for bookings via the dispatch center. Limo's work the same here, they must be pre-booked. All this was 25yrs ago, dispatch technology has changed a lot since then, good drivers (cab or limo) seem to rely more on their mobile phone than their radio these days.
"If he/she keeps that private and nobody ever figures it out, and his math and physics is solid, no problem with it."
In all honesty, though, I rather doubt you will find many Young Earthers who otherwise demonstrate solid grasps of math and physics... since math and physics pretty much rule out the Young Earth hypothesis. In fairness I suppose that in large part it's more just a failure or refusal to examine the actual evidence. But in some ways that's just as bad.
I'm curious Jane, what's your job? - I only ask because on the subject of AGW your "grasp of math and physics" is just as far away from well established science as those of a YEC. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I firmly believe nobody is immune to self delusion, 35yrs ago I was totally convinced Uri Geller was genuine, after all he "fixed my watch" by staring into the TV for 30 seconds. In 1980 I was interested enough in climate change to pick up a book (about tress) and start following the subject, due to a mixture of ignorance and deliberate misinformation campaigns I remained unconvinced CO2 was a serious problem for almost a decade after Hansen's now famous Senate testimony and the establishment of the IPCC.
Having been a victim of at least one case of severe self delusion, I can attest to the fact it is really easy to spot in others and really hard to see in yourself, this is especially true if you are a "smart person", most (honest) magicians will tell you "smart people" are counter-intuitively the easiest to fool, reason being they carry more prior assumptions than others as to how the universe ticks, it means the focus of their attention is more predictable and therefore more easily redirected.
As an independent observer who also feels obliged to pontificate on the social utility of the scientific method and the role of skepticism in it, I think that both yourself and the YEC cling to your contrarian views because you have neglected the most essential part of the art of skepticism, namely self-skepticism. The only scientific difference I see between a YEC's ideas on evolution and your ideas on AGW is the subject matter, but even that is similar since they are both heavily tilted towards geology and related Earth sciences.
Disclaimer: I offer this post as unwanted advice rather than an unwanted flame.
One post on a random website -no matter the content- is woefully inadequate information by which to judge someone.
Exactly, and if a prospective employer decides it's appropriate to judge you on a soundbite you should make certain that the prying bastard is the one who ends up feeling embarrassed and awkward. Don't even bother trying to defend whatever past behavior they are accusing you of, turn it around and make them defend their current behavior. You probably won't get the job, but nobody ever said principles are cheap.
Having said that I can also see that if someone self-identifies as a YEC, it disqualifies them from certain tasks. If someone has preyed on children in the past, it disqualifies them from working with children. For many jobs background checks are in fact proper due diligence, unfortunately there are a lot of self-important people who turn that genuine need into a disingenuous and hypocritical witch hunt.
Early 50's, 100kg, 6ft. I'm also able to recognize that I have the same instinctive bias toward (the not insignificant number) of people fatter than me. I don't know if other "cuddly" people have it or if it comes from my fit and fantastic youth ( one of the few "perks" of the "strong back, weak head" type of work I did back then ).
Studies have shown that the most common assumption is that fat people are lazy, undisciplined, unwilling to work hard, etc. -- not just in terms of health choices. Your comment is playing directly into that bias.
Bulls eye!
The message is I got is that if I want to be treated with respect I need to find a cuddly doctor, I'm guessing you already have an ego boosting slim one.
there are no asshole police
Reason being, everybody is somebody else's asshole.