Yes, John Howard (ex-Aussie PM) used this tactic to great effect when he and the attorney general were undermining the rule of law in the David Hicks case. Howard continually reffered to Hicks as a "terrorists" and his critics as "Hick's supporters" despite the fact that most of them (including me) were supporting the rule of law and thought Hick's was a dickhead. It's one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics I have seen in my 50 odd years, I cannot think of another case of political imprisonment by Australia that displayed such utter contempt for the basic rule of law as the Hicks case, and they got away with it by equating critics to terrorist sympathsers.
[strawman,self-delusion, strawman]. Victims have no one to blame but themselves.
You assume without question that he is a "victim". A victim of what? - The guy picked a fight and lost, he was given due process like everyone else, neither side broke the law. If you want to argue that justice delayed is justice denied I agee, but that problem exists for everyone not just the self styled martyrs.
I think I am starting to understand now
I doubt it, you have to grow up to understand anything deeper than authority==oppression.
I don't buy into all this parinoid crap about the government being out to get people but speaking of logic... People don't get railroaded because nobody cares about them or what they do, if they didn't care then why bother? To put his actions in a different context, if this guy walked up to a military checkpoint wearing the components of a suicide vest, do you think they would declare his corpse innocent? He deliberately started a pointless pissing competition with the biggest dick in the land and eventually won in court, if his life really is ruined then he only has himself to blame for that..
It's not YOUR half billion tax dollars, at most you have contributed ~$5.00, I'd dare say you have lost more than that behind the couch during the same time period.
Devil's advocate: Aussies really don't give a flying fuck what's written in their constitution, we think and act like we have certain rights, therefore we have those rights. Ink on paper in the legal sense is soley for the purpose of binding people to an agreement, regardless of the fact that the weaker party may not even know or comprehend the contents of the articles that bind him.
It's also abundantly clear from our history and countless opinion polls that Aussie's do not want or need a '2nd amendment', I for one kinda like the fact that both our most popular and most reviled politicians can walk the streets or go for their morning jog without the aide of helicopter gunships and snipers on rooftops.
And if I haven't convinced you yet that we don't need this shit pot stirred then I invite you to come and visit, enter via Perth 'international' airport and compare it to the US airport you left behind.
Indeed, here in Oz the cops carry breath testers for random DUI checks. I think they save more lives than radiation testers, although I suppose the glow could be distracting to other drivers at night.
If the trees and temps don't jive now, then why is it valid to say they jived a thousand years ago?
If you throw out the enitire TR proxy the results are virtually the same as only throwing out the divergent part. This in itself strongly suggests the "good" part of the proxy does indeed correlate well with the average of the other proxies wich in turn correlate with instrumental records and/or isotopic 'clocks'. As you say the TR proxy diverges from the instrumental record after the 1950's, and it's unknown why this is so, but it doesn't change the reconstruction in any meaningful way.
You should always consult the primary source, especially when the subject is AGW. If you haven't read the hockey stick paper and it's 2005(?) follow up, then do so, they list the proxies and discuss the tree ring problem. Proxy data sets can be found at Nasa's paleoclimate data repository. I think you'll find there are more than a "few samples" in the 3377 TR data sets they have on their books. Yes, data SETS, not data points.
Speaking of sources, you may want to try running your bullshit detector over the primary source that led you into this well known cul-de-sc of irrelevant trivia.
I live in Australia but that's besides the point, all roads get potholes even new ones. The fact you don't see them means your road maintenace crews are doing their job.
I think you're just being obtuse for some sort of personal pleasue but I'll bite anyway. Ten seconds to google MS's official list of known problems for win7 using the 'site:' switch. You can redefine that list as 'defective software' and argue about it if that's how you get your jollies, but the rest of the software industry will keep on being grown-ups about it and acknowledge such things as real world limitations to be worked around in the present and overcome at some undefined point in the future. Engineering and software are "best effort" endevours, you can go to jail for failing to make a "best effort" which is what the term "due dilligence" is all about.
Obligatory car analogy; A road is not defective just because you have to patch a few potholes after it's construction.
you can't tell at the same time "it's impossible to write zero bug software" and "but I didn't know my software had bugs"
Excuse me, I'm not sure if you are aware of it but your post has an identifyable bug, it contains an obvious strawman that your proof-reading appears to have missed. Can you please patch your original post and remove said strawman. Note, I don't want a new post, I want you to fix the original. I've donated to slashdot several times over the last decade to the tune of maybe $30 total, I know it's not a lot but nevertheless I didn't pay to see your bug ridden posts./sarcasm
We are all hypocrites in our own way, including you. I'm not a fan of Stallman's ideology and never have been, but a difference in opinion is no reason to kick a man when he's down.
Yes, we know WUWT fans such as yourself place a low value on "understanding the actual science", so much so that you haven't even bothered to link to the graph your banging on about. I can't prove you're an astroturfer, but I see this particular debating tactic as inconclusive evidence for the affirmative.
there are just as many other posters here claiming just the opposite
Forget what's posted on blogs and social sites, go browse the wealth of material provided by the IPCC, or NAS, or the Royal society, or CSIRO, or NASA, or NOAA, or WMO or any other reputable and independent scientific institution, even the WP page on AGW is informative for this purpose. A couple of afternons browsing should get you fariliar with the basic concepts, claims, evidence, and history of the subject, it will help you confirm/deny what you have read on blogs. Then browse the 'skeptical' blogs, WUWT, Climate Audit, Ice cap, or any other political front group. Read ALL material with a skeptical eye and some knowledge of the sources track record. - This method is what we skeptical types like to call "basic fact checking".
Sorry for the patronising tone, but sitting on the fence with this well understood phenomena is either intellectual lazyness or just a lack of basic researching skills.
Either cite your sources or take your disinformation elsewhere Jane. The IPCC and NAS both claim greater than 50% of the variation is human caused, the natural part has a very slight downward trend over the last century, the upward AGW signal dominates the historical trend, it even obscures the significant cooling signal coming from sulphurous smog.
Pretentions of honesty: Looking at the rest of the innane comments in this story, it's clear to me that slashdot has upset the Heartland Institue with yesterday's story and their army of astroturfers and useful idiots will now fill this thread with noise. Keep up the good work slashdot!
You've never heard of 'dew point', have you? It depends entirely on 2 variables, temprature and pressure. I'd say you just made a complete fool of yourself by telling the world you have no idea what causes rain, but that's not uncommon in AGW threads..
You need to understand the limitations of those threat assessments. The Pentagon doesn't assess the likelihood of such an event....Keep in mind that the Pentagon occasionally does threat assessments for alien invasions, asteroid impacts, and other low likelihood events too.
Nonsense of course they asses the likelyhood when it is possible to do so, as is the case with mass migration due to rising oceans and an expanding sub-tropical desert zone, border disputes due to resouces becoming accessible in an ice free artic summer, the list goes on... They have to make such judgements in order to state the priority of the threat, without that the report would just say, "here's some fanciful senarios, if congress would be so kind as to throw the budget dart, we will spend a trillion dollars on whatever it hits".
Protip: Look up and listen carefully to Rear Admiral David Titley on youtube, he's one of the grown-ups your taxes are employing.
Indeed! One of the biggest con jobs that these people have successfully pulled off was the one that convinced middle America that this issue was all about the kind of car you choose to drive. Peabody coal must be delighted with their propoganda vendor. Nuclear should certainly be part of the solution, I'm far from an expert on on nuclear reactors, I have a grasp of the physics and the different types of reactors but what I don't understand why pebble bed reactors (invented in the 1940's)are all but ignored, AFAICT they are cheap, can use the current nuclear waste we don't know what to do with as fuel, disposable, scalable, and it's physically impossible for it to melt down no matter how many earthquakes, tsunamis, irresponsible operators, and corrupt builders you throw at it.
A beautifull engineering idea is both simple and effective. In this layman's eyes the PBR appears to be an extremely simple solution to a number of very complex problems. I've read the critisizims section of the mandatory WP page but from both a utilitarian and public saftey POV I still don't understand why huge LWRs that can take decades to plan, build, and commission, are built in preferance to modular PBRs. Are we really waiting for materials science to come up with the perfect pebble coating?
Slashdot Mirror
So representative democracy is ok, as long as you get to rig the election?
Yes, John Howard (ex-Aussie PM) used this tactic to great effect when he and the attorney general were undermining the rule of law in the David Hicks case. Howard continually reffered to Hicks as a "terrorists" and his critics as "Hick's supporters" despite the fact that most of them (including me) were supporting the rule of law and thought Hick's was a dickhead. It's one of the most shameful episodes in Australian politics I have seen in my 50 odd years, I cannot think of another case of political imprisonment by Australia that displayed such utter contempt for the basic rule of law as the Hicks case, and they got away with it by equating critics to terrorist sympathsers.
He did nothing illegal.
Neither did the authorities, what's your point?
So how would you define mistreatment here? What is the normal length of time spent in remand by Canadian prisoners?
[strawman,self-delusion, strawman]. Victims have no one to blame but themselves.
You assume without question that he is a "victim". A victim of what? - The guy picked a fight and lost, he was given due process like everyone else, neither side broke the law. If you want to argue that justice delayed is justice denied I agee, but that problem exists for everyone not just the self styled martyrs.
I think I am starting to understand now
I doubt it, you have to grow up to understand anything deeper than authority==oppression.
Well done, I havent seen that many thourougly debunked talking points into one post since the 1990's.
I don't buy into all this parinoid crap about the government being out to get people but speaking of logic... People don't get railroaded because nobody cares about them or what they do, if they didn't care then why bother? To put his actions in a different context, if this guy walked up to a military checkpoint wearing the components of a suicide vest, do you think they would declare his corpse innocent? He deliberately started a pointless pissing competition with the biggest dick in the land and eventually won in court, if his life really is ruined then he only has himself to blame for that..
It's not YOUR half billion tax dollars, at most you have contributed ~$5.00, I'd dare say you have lost more than that behind the couch during the same time period.
Devil's advocate: Aussies really don't give a flying fuck what's written in their constitution, we think and act like we have certain rights, therefore we have those rights. Ink on paper in the legal sense is soley for the purpose of binding people to an agreement, regardless of the fact that the weaker party may not even know or comprehend the contents of the articles that bind him.
It's also abundantly clear from our history and countless opinion polls that Aussie's do not want or need a '2nd amendment', I for one kinda like the fact that both our most popular and most reviled politicians can walk the streets or go for their morning jog without the aide of helicopter gunships and snipers on rooftops.
And if I haven't convinced you yet that we don't need this shit pot stirred then I invite you to come and visit, enter via Perth 'international' airport and compare it to the US airport you left behind.
Indeed, here in Oz the cops carry breath testers for random DUI checks. I think they save more lives than radiation testers, although I suppose the glow could be distracting to other drivers at night.
This has got to be the citizens tax money being wasted to build a ghost city. No way private money would develop such a thing.
Wrong
Not sure how anyone learns to read. How rediculous that we still have to memorise those 26 meaningless glyphs? - It's just not intuitive!
If the trees and temps don't jive now, then why is it valid to say they jived a thousand years ago?
If you throw out the enitire TR proxy the results are virtually the same as only throwing out the divergent part. This in itself strongly suggests the "good" part of the proxy does indeed correlate well with the average of the other proxies wich in turn correlate with instrumental records and/or isotopic 'clocks'. As you say the TR proxy diverges from the instrumental record after the 1950's, and it's unknown why this is so, but it doesn't change the reconstruction in any meaningful way.
You should always consult the primary source, especially when the subject is AGW. If you haven't read the hockey stick paper and it's 2005(?) follow up, then do so, they list the proxies and discuss the tree ring problem. Proxy data sets can be found at Nasa's paleoclimate data repository. I think you'll find there are more than a "few samples" in the 3377 TR data sets they have on their books. Yes, data SETS, not data points.
Speaking of sources, you may want to try running your bullshit detector over the primary source that led you into this well known cul-de-sc of irrelevant trivia.
I live in Australia but that's besides the point, all roads get potholes even new ones. The fact you don't see them means your road maintenace crews are doing their job.
I think you're just being obtuse for some sort of personal pleasue but I'll bite anyway. Ten seconds to google MS's official list of known problems for win7 using the 'site:' switch. You can redefine that list as 'defective software' and argue about it if that's how you get your jollies, but the rest of the software industry will keep on being grown-ups about it and acknowledge such things as real world limitations to be worked around in the present and overcome at some undefined point in the future. Engineering and software are "best effort" endevours, you can go to jail for failing to make a "best effort" which is what the term "due dilligence" is all about.
Obligatory car analogy; A road is not defective just because you have to patch a few potholes after it's construction.
you can't tell at the same time "it's impossible to write zero bug software" and "but I didn't know my software had bugs"
Excuse me, I'm not sure if you are aware of it but your post has an identifyable bug, it contains an obvious strawman that your proof-reading appears to have missed. Can you please patch your original post and remove said strawman. Note, I don't want a new post, I want you to fix the original. I've donated to slashdot several times over the last decade to the tune of maybe $30 total, I know it's not a lot but nevertheless I didn't pay to see your bug ridden posts. /sarcasm
We are all hypocrites in our own way, including you. I'm not a fan of Stallman's ideology and never have been, but a difference in opinion is no reason to kick a man when he's down.
...and the other half run on tractor fuel.
I've been watching TV on and off for 5 decades, there was a sweet spot in the late 70's - early 80's where TV's came on instantly.
Yes, we know WUWT fans such as yourself place a low value on "understanding the actual science", so much so that you haven't even bothered to link to the graph your banging on about. I can't prove you're an astroturfer, but I see this particular debating tactic as inconclusive evidence for the affirmative.
there are just as many other posters here claiming just the opposite
Forget what's posted on blogs and social sites, go browse the wealth of material provided by the IPCC, or NAS, or the Royal society, or CSIRO, or NASA, or NOAA, or WMO or any other reputable and independent scientific institution, even the WP page on AGW is informative for this purpose. A couple of afternons browsing should get you fariliar with the basic concepts, claims, evidence, and history of the subject, it will help you confirm/deny what you have read on blogs. Then browse the 'skeptical' blogs, WUWT, Climate Audit, Ice cap, or any other political front group. Read ALL material with a skeptical eye and some knowledge of the sources track record. - This method is what we skeptical types like to call "basic fact checking".
Sorry for the patronising tone, but sitting on the fence with this well understood phenomena is either intellectual lazyness or just a lack of basic researching skills.
Either cite your sources or take your disinformation elsewhere Jane. The IPCC and NAS both claim greater than 50% of the variation is human caused, the natural part has a very slight downward trend over the last century, the upward AGW signal dominates the historical trend, it even obscures the significant cooling signal coming from sulphurous smog.
Pretentions of honesty: Looking at the rest of the innane comments in this story, it's clear to me that slashdot has upset the Heartland Institue with yesterday's story and their army of astroturfers and useful idiots will now fill this thread with noise. Keep up the good work slashdot!
You've never heard of 'dew point', have you? It depends entirely on 2 variables, temprature and pressure. I'd say you just made a complete fool of yourself by telling the world you have no idea what causes rain, but that's not uncommon in AGW threads..
You need to understand the limitations of those threat assessments. The Pentagon doesn't assess the likelihood of such an event....Keep in mind that the Pentagon occasionally does threat assessments for alien invasions, asteroid impacts, and other low likelihood events too.
Nonsense of course they asses the likelyhood when it is possible to do so, as is the case with mass migration due to rising oceans and an expanding sub-tropical desert zone, border disputes due to resouces becoming accessible in an ice free artic summer, the list goes on... They have to make such judgements in order to state the priority of the threat, without that the report would just say, "here's some fanciful senarios, if congress would be so kind as to throw the budget dart, we will spend a trillion dollars on whatever it hits".
Protip: Look up and listen carefully to Rear Admiral David Titley on youtube, he's one of the grown-ups your taxes are employing.
Indeed! One of the biggest con jobs that these people have successfully pulled off was the one that convinced middle America that this issue was all about the kind of car you choose to drive. Peabody coal must be delighted with their propoganda vendor. Nuclear should certainly be part of the solution, I'm far from an expert on on nuclear reactors, I have a grasp of the physics and the different types of reactors but what I don't understand why pebble bed reactors (invented in the 1940's)are all but ignored, AFAICT they are cheap, can use the current nuclear waste we don't know what to do with as fuel, disposable, scalable, and it's physically impossible for it to melt down no matter how many earthquakes, tsunamis, irresponsible operators, and corrupt builders you throw at it.
A beautifull engineering idea is both simple and effective. In this layman's eyes the PBR appears to be an extremely simple solution to a number of very complex problems. I've read the critisizims section of the mandatory WP page but from both a utilitarian and public saftey POV I still don't understand why huge LWRs that can take decades to plan, build, and commission, are built in preferance to modular PBRs. Are we really waiting for materials science to come up with the perfect pebble coating?