"The climategate scandal was really about climatologists hiding their data and methods from critical review."
I suppose you're going to tell me that the threeindependentinquries that exonerated Jones and the CRU (including the CRU investigation headed by the ex-chairman of Shell) were a whitewash. Look closely at the third one where it describes how the investigators were able to obtain the "hiden data" from public sources within two days. If you still belive the CRU was hiding anything after the thourough debunking of those claims then you haven't been paying attention.
Agreed. I don't see how this is any different to the concept of the ANCAP safety rating we have here in Oz, the rating is determined by smashing up cars in the lab and examining the results. It a god send for consumers since it reduces the complex task of comparing the effcientcy of a multitude of features into a simple rating of 1 to 5 stars. A five star rating is an easy thing to grasp and is a big selling point over here. They have a similar saftey rating system in the EU, the acronym escapes me but it's often mentioned on "Top Gear".
Considering the number of political investigations and FOI requests that Mann has been subjected to and complied with, what makes you think there is anything that is not already on the public record?
Just because the AG tried to issue a supoena without probable cause does not mean the information is not already available. The same is true for many of the FOI requests Mann gets from the likes of McIntryre, etc. Much of the requested information is already available either in his published work or in previous replies to FOI requests. The intent with these tatics not to shead light on the subject rather it is to create the impression that Mann is hiding something while at the same time bogging down his reseach with a mountain of legal paperwork.
Anti-AGW proponents like to paint themselves as modern day Galileo's but none of them are subjected to anywhere near the level of offical harrasment directed towards Mann and his team. Instead these unpublished, unqualified political hacks are invited to offer thier discredited opinions in the halls of power with depressing monotony. Lord Monckton is just one obvious example in this morally and ethically bankrupt abuse of political power.
"If you want to talk scary, that's scary. Mann worked/works for public universities paid for with tax dollars. Explain why getting access to anything that he does while on tax payer time isn't as simple as saying "hey dude, can we see your work?"
AFAIK the AG did not ask "hey dude, can we see your work?", he went straight to court. Mann's work has been published, you can find most (if not all) of it at realclimate.org. The AG is alleging fraud in the grant process, if he is interested in the integrity of the grant process then why is he trying to suponea Mann without probable cause? Besides, wouldn't it make more sense to be looking at the records of the government agency that issued the grant?
Could it be that he is not interested in the truth and is simpy throwing mud at a high value target in an attempt to score political points? Such obvious propoganda tactics can be very effective even if the case goes nowhere, for example it's worked on you in that you have already swallowed the claim that Mann is hiding something that belongs to taxpayer's.
I agree, from a philosophical POV it cannot be claimed the sun will rise tomorrow with absolute certainty, this abhorence for absolute certainty is what distingushes science from all other philosophies. The nature of the universe is akin to Douglas Adams' infinite probablility machine but science itself is about what is probable, it does not dispute that philosophically anything is possible.
"Strong evidence and a little inductive reasoning does NOT make something conclusively true."
Again, I agree. Truth is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. I am extremely confident the sun WILL rise tomorrow because it is a well established scientific theory that has never failed in all of human history. Such well established theories are commonly refered to as "scientific fact". The National Acdemies of science recently published an editorial in their Science journal emphasising the point that AGW was now a well established theory that like plate techtonics and evolution falls under the common definition of scientific fact. It also emphasised that no such theory can ever be proven to be true, it can only be said that all attempts to prove it false have failed.
The term denier probably is a link to the holocaust. In all likelyhood it's because the main anti-AGW proponents are using similar propoganda methods. If we take their advise and continue to burn the known coal reserves over the next 100-200yrs then we will have a change similar to the prehistoric vulcanisim event that turned the oceans acidic and wiped out 90% of extant species. Such a significant change could be seen as a global gas chamber, it would take millions of years for the biosphere to recover and would have a much greater effect on humanity than the gas chambers of the second second world war.
""deny" implies that there is no shadow of a question about the factuality AGW"
No, "deny" implies the denier is unwilling to participate in the normal scientific process. It's the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I don't believe you". The denier often does not have a competing theory let alone a better one, does not comprehend the current theory, and refuses to apply his "skepticisim" to his own ideas.
The above applies honest deniers, however (as with high profile historical deniers) I find that most high profile AGW deniers are not that honest, they are expert propogandists motivated by politics and/or money. If you doubt this then look up any anti-AGW group in the US and determine their geographical distance from K street. Most, if not all, are within a one mile radius.
If you dont understand or agree, it may be helpful to recall that observations of natural phenomena are facts, the difference between those fact and historical facts is that the former are repeatable. One such fact is that CO2 converts IR radiation into atmospheric heat.
As you are well aware, Mann has been repeatedly investigated by political hacks and repeatedly cleared. This is just another politically motivated fishing expedition amoungst the constant stream of FOI requests, death threats, and political investigations he and his team are subjected to on a daily basis.
We've talked before and I have a fair idea of your political views, I strongly suspect that if it was not about climate change you would be screaming about government oppression and Mann's right to be left alone.
"And having as many children as possible might mean letting finances limit the number instead of biology. This, and self-centeredness, IS the reason the U.S. is experiencing real population decline."
Bollocks, the reason the birth rate dramatically declined in the west during the 20th century is due mainly to --gasp-- socialisim...
1. Socialist programs such as pensions mean that people no longer have to rely on thier children to provide for them in old age.
2. Other socialist programs such as water treatment and sewers, mean people no longer need to have a dozen kids to make sure that two surive.
Don't need to, I've been a fan for 35yrs, the wall came about 5yrs after wish you were here. However just out of curiosity I did look it up, my version has 1,170,000 hits, yours has 91.:P
To me WYWH is about my past married life and my ex's descent into alcoholisim, coincidently the quote roughly translates to your own sig phrased as a question. I don't know what it would mean if it was "the wall", Floyd's wall (the establishment) would qualify as a cage. Exchanging a walk in a cage for a lead role in a cage doesn't make any sense to me.
"it's showing how a political event can be disrupted by those who disagree with the event's sponsor with a simple misinformation"
Glenn Beck fans cannot be fooled by simple misinformation, they have no need for geographical facts, their gut instincts will lead them directly to the rally.
Hah, that was actually a very sucessfull scam in the UK, IIRC in the 50's the scammer adverstised a copper medalion of the Queen mounted on walnut to commerorate her corrination, the mail order price was 10 pounds. What you got was a penny glued to a small piece of walnut. He sold thousands of them and was eventually taken to court where he won the case.
I went to a funeral a couple of years ago where that was played as they wheeled out the coffin to the hearse, it really did sum up his attitude to life. Personally I would love to have John Cleese deliver the eulogy at my funeral and have my ashes pressed into Pink Floyd's Time - "The time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say".
If a politician is willing to throw the public interest under the bus for $400K what makes you think they would behave differently for $40M?
From my non-US POV what is wrong with US politics is that the public service is dysfunctional because lobbyists have been allowed to infiltrate and bypass them on a routine basis, when people hear the same propoganda from corporatized media and government entities it's little wonder many have been convinced to vote against their own interests. Of course the problem is not limited to the US but it does appear much to be much worse in the US than in most of the other western nations.
For an example of how dysfunctional the process is you need look no further than Senator Inhofe, a rabid anti-environmentalist in the pocket of the coal industry who just happens head up the senate environment committe. However there is no more tragic an example of what happens when vested interests bypass the normal checks and balances of the public service than The office of special plans
Sure organisations should have the right to petition the government but it should be totally unacceptable for them to "own" politicians or force feed them misinformation, fix that by cleaning up and empowering the public service to put lobbyists back in their box and many of the systemic problems in the US will melt away.
Having said that, it's also apparent that a strong public service is by iteslf not a silver bullet.
Forgot to add that there is no shortage of private courier companies in Oz, there are over 2000 such companies listed in the yellow pages. From what I have seen UPS and FedX are not big players here, perhaps the competion is too fierce for them, or maybe favourable legislation is too expensive?
"the Act put the bulk of revenue generating
products under a stringent price cap
and gave the Postal Service limited ability to control
its costs or increase revenue."
I wonder which company wrote that legislation? - From your post, it looks to me like the US government has deliberately tied the hands of the USPS managers behind their backs and then accused them of doing nothing.
The postal service doesn't need to be a drain on taxpayers, in fact they are usually seen as a revenue raiser for governments and are still making healthy profits elsewhere. For example; Australia post is run like an independent bussiness, with less than a tenth of the potential customers of USPS spread over a similar area it still managed to make a $381M profit last year, this is in spite of the GFC devaluing their assets, higher fuel costs, and a sharp drop in snail mail volume.
"Australia Post’s pre-tax profit for 2008/09 of $380.9 million was down on the record high of $592.2 million booked in the previous financial year." - Source - SMH
They get an employee to join the union then make their demands on the employer. The employer stops laughing when the union sends in their lawyers. Remeber you can sue someone for whatever the hell you like, it doesn't have to make sense, you just need the victim to capitulate to set a precedent.
"Facebook is claiming that they own "book" in the context of social networking sites....the way trademark law works is that you must actively defend your trademarks"
Yes that's what they are claiming, however this is NOT how trademark law works. Thier trademark is "facebook", they cannot own "book", "face", "ok", "ace", "boo" or any other common usage substring they can find in their trademark, regardless of context. If OTOH teachbook advertised itself as "facebook for teachers" then they would HAVE to defend their actual trademark to keep it.
Yes they are hoping to scare others but this is a two man outfit, the "juicy settlement" probably wouldn't be enough to pay for the wine and cheese at a FB board meeting.
Precedents are often set by cases like this, ie: a large organisations attacking a tiny outfit who cannot possibly afford to defend themselves. It's not just corporations that do it, unions have also learnt to attack a small shop so as to set a precendent they can then use against the big boys.
"No, it is a consequence of too much internet brainwashing.You anti-religious trolls all sound the same. Do you go through a training course somewhere?"
You mean like this one? - No, thankfully we don't.
Slashdot Mirror
"The climategate scandal was really about climatologists hiding their data and methods from critical review."
I suppose you're going to tell me that the three independent inquries that exonerated Jones and the CRU (including the CRU investigation headed by the ex-chairman of Shell) were a whitewash. Look closely at the third one where it describes how the investigators were able to obtain the "hiden data" from public sources within two days. If you still belive the CRU was hiding anything after the thourough debunking of those claims then you haven't been paying attention.
Agreed. I don't see how this is any different to the concept of the ANCAP safety rating we have here in Oz, the rating is determined by smashing up cars in the lab and examining the results. It a god send for consumers since it reduces the complex task of comparing the effcientcy of a multitude of features into a simple rating of 1 to 5 stars. A five star rating is an easy thing to grasp and is a big selling point over here. They have a similar saftey rating system in the EU, the acronym escapes me but it's often mentioned on "Top Gear".
Fair enough, you have my appologies for misjudging your post and reading something between the lines that was not there.
Considering the number of political investigations and FOI requests that Mann has been subjected to and complied with, what makes you think there is anything that is not already on the public record?
Just because the AG tried to issue a supoena without probable cause does not mean the information is not already available. The same is true for many of the FOI requests Mann gets from the likes of McIntryre, etc. Much of the requested information is already available either in his published work or in previous replies to FOI requests. The intent with these tatics not to shead light on the subject rather it is to create the impression that Mann is hiding something while at the same time bogging down his reseach with a mountain of legal paperwork.
Anti-AGW proponents like to paint themselves as modern day Galileo's but none of them are subjected to anywhere near the level of offical harrasment directed towards Mann and his team. Instead these unpublished, unqualified political hacks are invited to offer thier discredited opinions in the halls of power with depressing monotony. Lord Monckton is just one obvious example in this morally and ethically bankrupt abuse of political power.
"If you want to talk scary, that's scary. Mann worked/works for public universities paid for with tax dollars. Explain why getting access to anything that he does while on tax payer time isn't as simple as saying "hey dude, can we see your work?"
AFAIK the AG did not ask "hey dude, can we see your work?", he went straight to court. Mann's work has been published, you can find most (if not all) of it at realclimate.org. The AG is alleging fraud in the grant process, if he is interested in the integrity of the grant process then why is he trying to suponea Mann without probable cause? Besides, wouldn't it make more sense to be looking at the records of the government agency that issued the grant?
Could it be that he is not interested in the truth and is simpy throwing mud at a high value target in an attempt to score political points? Such obvious propoganda tactics can be very effective even if the case goes nowhere, for example it's worked on you in that you have already swallowed the claim that Mann is hiding something that belongs to taxpayer's.
"Perhaps im simply being pedantic here"
I agree, from a philosophical POV it cannot be claimed the sun will rise tomorrow with absolute certainty, this abhorence for absolute certainty is what distingushes science from all other philosophies. The nature of the universe is akin to Douglas Adams' infinite probablility machine but science itself is about what is probable, it does not dispute that philosophically anything is possible.
"Strong evidence and a little inductive reasoning does NOT make something conclusively true."
Again, I agree. Truth is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. I am extremely confident the sun WILL rise tomorrow because it is a well established scientific theory that has never failed in all of human history. Such well established theories are commonly refered to as "scientific fact". The National Acdemies of science recently published an editorial in their Science journal emphasising the point that AGW was now a well established theory that like plate techtonics and evolution falls under the common definition of scientific fact. It also emphasised that no such theory can ever be proven to be true, it can only be said that all attempts to prove it false have failed.
The term denier probably is a link to the holocaust. In all likelyhood it's because the main anti-AGW proponents are using similar propoganda methods. If we take their advise and continue to burn the known coal reserves over the next 100-200yrs then we will have a change similar to the prehistoric vulcanisim event that turned the oceans acidic and wiped out 90% of extant species. Such a significant change could be seen as a global gas chamber, it would take millions of years for the biosphere to recover and would have a much greater effect on humanity than the gas chambers of the second second world war.
""deny" implies that there is no shadow of a question about the factuality AGW"
No, "deny" implies the denier is unwilling to participate in the normal scientific process. It's the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I don't believe you". The denier often does not have a competing theory let alone a better one, does not comprehend the current theory, and refuses to apply his "skepticisim" to his own ideas.
The above applies honest deniers, however (as with high profile historical deniers) I find that most high profile AGW deniers are not that honest, they are expert propogandists motivated by politics and/or money. If you doubt this then look up any anti-AGW group in the US and determine their geographical distance from K street. Most, if not all, are within a one mile radius.
If you dont understand or agree, it may be helpful to recall that observations of natural phenomena are facts, the difference between those fact and historical facts is that the former are repeatable. One such fact is that CO2 converts IR radiation into atmospheric heat.
"until something is found or nothing is found."
As you are well aware, Mann has been repeatedly investigated by political hacks and repeatedly cleared. This is just another politically motivated fishing expedition amoungst the constant stream of FOI requests, death threats, and political investigations he and his team are subjected to on a daily basis.
We've talked before and I have a fair idea of your political views, I strongly suspect that if it was not about climate change you would be screaming about government oppression and Mann's right to be left alone.
"And having as many children as possible might mean letting finances limit the number instead of biology. This, and self-centeredness, IS the reason the U.S. is experiencing real population decline."
Bollocks, the reason the birth rate dramatically declined in the west during the 20th century is due mainly to --gasp-- socialisim...
1. Socialist programs such as pensions mean that people no longer have to rely on thier children to provide for them in old age.
2. Other socialist programs such as water treatment and sewers, mean people no longer need to have a dozen kids to make sure that two surive.
"Look up the lyrics."
:P
Don't need to, I've been a fan for 35yrs, the wall came about 5yrs after wish you were here. However just out of curiosity I did look it up, my version has 1,170,000 hits, yours has 91.
To me WYWH is about my past married life and my ex's descent into alcoholisim, coincidently the quote roughly translates to your own sig phrased as a question. I don't know what it would mean if it was "the wall", Floyd's wall (the establishment) would qualify as a cage. Exchanging a walk in a cage for a lead role in a cage doesn't make any sense to me.
"it's showing how a political event can be disrupted by those who disagree with the event's sponsor with a simple misinformation"
Glenn Beck fans cannot be fooled by simple misinformation, they have no need for geographical facts, their gut instincts will lead them directly to the rally.
Hah, that was actually a very sucessfull scam in the UK, IIRC in the 50's the scammer adverstised a copper medalion of the Queen mounted on walnut to commerorate her corrination, the mail order price was 10 pounds. What you got was a penny glued to a small piece of walnut. He sold thousands of them and was eventually taken to court where he won the case.
Thanks for the correction, was Inhofe the head in the past?
I went to a funeral a couple of years ago where that was played as they wheeled out the coffin to the hearse, it really did sum up his attitude to life. Personally I would love to have John Cleese deliver the eulogy at my funeral and have my ashes pressed into Pink Floyd's Time - "The time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say".
If a politician is willing to throw the public interest under the bus for $400K what makes you think they would behave differently for $40M?
From my non-US POV what is wrong with US politics is that the public service is dysfunctional because lobbyists have been allowed to infiltrate and bypass them on a routine basis, when people hear the same propoganda from corporatized media and government entities it's little wonder many have been convinced to vote against their own interests. Of course the problem is not limited to the US but it does appear much to be much worse in the US than in most of the other western nations.
For an example of how dysfunctional the process is you need look no further than Senator Inhofe, a rabid anti-environmentalist in the pocket of the coal industry who just happens head up the senate environment committe. However there is no more tragic an example of what happens when vested interests bypass the normal checks and balances of the public service than The office of special plans
Sure organisations should have the right to petition the government but it should be totally unacceptable for them to "own" politicians or force feed them misinformation, fix that by cleaning up and empowering the public service to put lobbyists back in their box and many of the systemic problems in the US will melt away.
Having said that, it's also apparent that a strong public service is by iteslf not a silver bullet.
Forgot to add that there is no shortage of private courier companies in Oz, there are over 2000 such companies listed in the yellow pages. From what I have seen UPS and FedX are not big players here, perhaps the competion is too fierce for them, or maybe favourable legislation is too expensive?
"the Act put the bulk of revenue generating products under a stringent price cap and gave the Postal Service limited ability to control its costs or increase revenue."
I wonder which company wrote that legislation? - From your post, it looks to me like the US government has deliberately tied the hands of the USPS managers behind their backs and then accused them of doing nothing.
The postal service doesn't need to be a drain on taxpayers, in fact they are usually seen as a revenue raiser for governments and are still making healthy profits elsewhere. For example; Australia post is run like an independent bussiness, with less than a tenth of the potential customers of USPS spread over a similar area it still managed to make a $381M profit last year, this is in spite of the GFC devaluing their assets, higher fuel costs, and a sharp drop in snail mail volume.
"Australia Post’s pre-tax profit for 2008/09 of $380.9 million was down on the record high of $592.2 million booked in the previous financial year." - Source - SMH
They get an employee to join the union then make their demands on the employer. The employer stops laughing when the union sends in their lawyers. Remeber you can sue someone for whatever the hell you like, it doesn't have to make sense, you just need the victim to capitulate to set a precedent.
"Facebook is claiming that they own "book" in the context of social networking sites....the way trademark law works is that you must actively defend your trademarks"
Yes that's what they are claiming, however this is NOT how trademark law works. Thier trademark is "facebook", they cannot own "book", "face", "ok", "ace", "boo" or any other common usage substring they can find in their trademark, regardless of context. If OTOH teachbook advertised itself as "facebook for teachers" then they would HAVE to defend their actual trademark to keep it.
Yes they are hoping to scare others but this is a two man outfit, the "juicy settlement" probably wouldn't be enough to pay for the wine and cheese at a FB board meeting.
"the courts have defined through precedent"
Precedents are often set by cases like this, ie: a large organisations attacking a tiny outfit who cannot possibly afford to defend themselves. It's not just corporations that do it, unions have also learnt to attack a small shop so as to set a precendent they can then use against the big boys.
Even without Littlemore, Media Watch is still the most underrated show on the box.
You should have left out the last sentence. New drugs do not go directly from mice to the general population.
"No, it is a consequence of too much internet brainwashing.You anti-religious trolls all sound the same. Do you go through a training course somewhere?"
You mean like this one? - No, thankfully we don't.