Is it just my imagination or has there been a sharp increase over the last decade in the number of people willing to swallow anything that comes in the form of an anti-science conspiracy theory.
Most things that are claimed to be uniquely human are just more sophisticated versions of what other intelligent animals can do. As you point out birds (and chimps) have primative tool designing abilities. Birds and chimps also make elaborate nests by collecting and assembling parts, chimp nests are a kind of bed they build in a tree to sleep at night.
"This little town is adorable and attracts tourists for all over who come and spend their money as well as deteriorate the very environment they find dear."
Who will provide the grand design?
What is yours and what is mine?
'Cause there is no more new frontier.
We have got to make it here.
We satisfy our endless needs and
justify our bloody deeds,
in the name of destiny and the name
of God.
And you can see them there,
On Sunday morning.
They stand up and sing about,
what it's like up there.
They call it paradise,
I don't know why.
You call someplace paradise,
kiss it goodbye.
"This seems to be a favorite belief on the left: nobody can legitimately disagree with them". - Sigh, you don't seem to realise that's exacly the same behaviour you so eloquently argued against in the first half of your post.
Don't get your knickers in a knot, it was just a turn of phrase. Climate is much easier to forecast than weather. Generally a researcher uses one model and runs it many times using many different senarios. Larger efforts such as the IPCC average the output of many different models running a few standard senarios.
"was proven correct after the fact"
Yes, testable predictions are what distingushes science from all other philosophies. That said, I agree we can only make "big picture" predictions on climate. I belive a more appropriate saying is "perfection is the enemy of progress".
"If you have some useful information about that data then please share."
The average temp in Greenland has risen ~3degC in the last century.
You have the raw data and it's not hard to work out how to perform a least squares fit using a spreadsheet. Therefore you have everything you need to confirm/debunk my claim.
If you would rather read about science than perform it then you could start by looking here and here, or if pretty graphs are your thing then try a this random article that took me two minutes to find via a google search
"From the data he posted, it doesn't look like the 2000s, or even any multiyear period between 1980-2010 was exceptionally warm"
The Artic is warming at about 3X the rate of temperate zones, the phenomena is called Polar Amplification, it was predicted by one of James Hansens models in the 80's and has since been confirmed by obsevation.
"it would seem to suggest that a big iceberg calving in Greenland might not be global warming related"
Somewhat tautologically the trend that shows AGW is causing ice loss is composed of billions of individual events, none of which can be said to be caused by AGW. It's like thowing dice that are loaded in such a way that the odds of snake's eyes are 10/36 rather than 1/36. You can never say for sure that a particular occurance of snake's eyes was due to the loading, but you can be certain the dice are loaded.
"The IT worker is held to a standard above that of officers, managers, and other employees."
Rubbish, if a bank manager did the same thing with the combination to the safe I think it's very likely he would get the same treatment.
"Come show us how this works or we will throw you in jail."
That's just hystercial hyperbole. Childs has no one to blame but himself for his prediciment. The principle is simple, don't make a dick of yourself by deliberately sabotaging your employer's business.
A link to a registration walled article from a Murdoch paper about a paywalled article at another Murdoch paper, I'm convinced!
If such claims were true do you not think that the US would have by now offered some of these people assylum and then paraded them and the offending document before the press?
"Probably because the researcher who wrote the algorithm was bad at representing the problem abstractly"
Rubbish, if you critsize the original algorithim for being an incomplete solution then you must also critisize the bot for being an incomplete solution. The bot programmer is using the original algorithim's output as his input. The two algorithims are solving different sub-problems and only when you run them in series do you get a better answer.
IP is a perfectly cromulent description of the rights a patent grants to its owner, ie: Intellectual because it's an idea, property becuse you can buy or sell it. There's no dispute that mining rights are property, so why dispute patent rights are property? The thing we should be disputing is the validity of allocating those rights to software and other mathematical abstractions.
"Responsible disclosure may be too much to ask for -- but I wish that dangerous information was redacted"
WL have not published 15,000 documents that they say would expose informants or troops to harm. According to them there is a coded identifier on such documents that makes them easy to filter out. Also according to WL, a week before they published the documents they gave the whitehouse the opportunity to point out any document that may put people in harms way, the whitehouse refused the offer. - source; Assange interviews, ABC Australia.
The fact that I have not seen anyone point out a single instance of a document that would put someone at risk seems to indicate that WL were telling the truth in that interview.
You're being silly, "in private" does not mean you can't reveal your vote, it means nobody else is allowed to snoop.
Put your thinking cap back on and re-read my post. The snippet in the OP is not the entire electrol act it's just one paragraph, as with all democractic governments, elections in Oz are by secret ballot and the law in Oz takes the privacy of the secret ballot very seriously (eg: see the recent kurffufle about blind people and their right to a secret ballot).
Family First is a far-right "Christian" party, their only senator is a self-confessed creationist, he became a vocal AGW "skeptic" after being fetted by US lobbyists such as the Hearland Institute and CEI. He is also a key proponent behind the intenet filter, at least he was until Conroy put his anti-abortion sponsers on the proposed blacklist.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just my imagination or has there been a sharp increase over the last decade in the number of people willing to swallow anything that comes in the form of an anti-science conspiracy theory.
Most things that are claimed to be uniquely human are just more sophisticated versions of what other intelligent animals can do. As you point out birds (and chimps) have primative tool designing abilities. Birds and chimps also make elaborate nests by collecting and assembling parts, chimp nests are a kind of bed they build in a tree to sleep at night.
"This little town is adorable and attracts tourists for all over who come and spend their money as well as deteriorate the very environment they find dear."
Who will provide the grand design?
What is yours and what is mine?
'Cause there is no more new frontier.
We have got to make it here.
We satisfy our endless needs and
justify our bloody deeds,
in the name of destiny and the name
of God.
And you can see them there,
On Sunday morning.
They stand up and sing about,
what it's like up there.
They call it paradise,
I don't know why.
You call someplace paradise,
kiss it goodbye.
- From "The last resort" by The Eagles.
"People are, as a rule, stupid and lazy."
No need for mass extermination or mutants. True enlightenment comes when you realize you are not an exception to that rule.
"This seems to be a favorite belief on the left: nobody can legitimately disagree with them". - Sigh, you don't seem to realise that's exacly the same behaviour you so eloquently argued against in the first half of your post.
"When is it OK to drink them? Easy to remember answer: Never.
You must be the life of the party.
Locally it's known as "Bundy and coke". Bundy = Bundaberg rum.
Don't get your knickers in a knot, it was just a turn of phrase. Climate is much easier to forecast than weather. Generally a researcher uses one model and runs it many times using many different senarios. Larger efforts such as the IPCC average the output of many different models running a few standard senarios.
"was proven correct after the fact"
Yes, testable predictions are what distingushes science from all other philosophies. That said, I agree we can only make "big picture" predictions on climate. I belive a more appropriate saying is "perfection is the enemy of progress".
Either that or import goods from China with sailing ships.
"The US is also already much more energy efficient than China (3x the GDP, lower energy consumption and much lower Greenhouse pollution"
China is marginally higher than the US on total emmissions but on a per capita basis China's emmission are something like 1/6th of the US.
"If you have some useful information about that data then please share."
The average temp in Greenland has risen ~3degC in the last century.
You have the raw data and it's not hard to work out how to perform a least squares fit using a spreadsheet. Therefore you have everything you need to confirm/debunk my claim.
If you would rather read about science than perform it then you could start by looking here and here, or if pretty graphs are your thing then try a this random article that took me two minutes to find via a google search
"From the data he posted, it doesn't look like the 2000s, or even any multiyear period between 1980-2010 was exceptionally warm"
The Artic is warming at about 3X the rate of temperate zones, the phenomena is called Polar Amplification, it was predicted by one of James Hansens models in the 80's and has since been confirmed by obsevation.
"it would seem to suggest that a big iceberg calving in Greenland might not be global warming related"
Somewhat tautologically the trend that shows AGW is causing ice loss is composed of billions of individual events, none of which can be said to be caused by AGW. It's like thowing dice that are loaded in such a way that the odds of snake's eyes are 10/36 rather than 1/36. You can never say for sure that a particular occurance of snake's eyes was due to the loading, but you can be certain the dice are loaded.
"What many leave out is analysis of data from satellites that provide measurement of ice thickness."
A video that I shamelesly "stole" from NASA shows animated ice volume data from military satelites for the period 1981-2009.
"The IT worker is held to a standard above that of officers, managers, and other employees."
Rubbish, if a bank manager did the same thing with the combination to the safe I think it's very likely he would get the same treatment.
"Come show us how this works or we will throw you in jail."
That's just hystercial hyperbole. Childs has no one to blame but himself for his prediciment. The principle is simple, don't make a dick of yourself by deliberately sabotaging your employer's business.
A link to a registration walled article from a Murdoch paper about a paywalled article at another Murdoch paper, I'm convinced!
If such claims were true do you not think that the US would have by now offered some of these people assylum and then paraded them and the offending document before the press?
This thread is stating to resemble an episode of Red Dwarf.
"and certainly not to the un-analyzed, un-redacted form in which they were released. Leaving in the names of people who are still in danger...."
It never ceases to amaze me how easily propoganda is embedded into the public conciousness.
"Probably because the researcher who wrote the algorithm was bad at representing the problem abstractly"
Rubbish, if you critsize the original algorithim for being an incomplete solution then you must also critisize the bot for being an incomplete solution. The bot programmer is using the original algorithim's output as his input. The two algorithims are solving different sub-problems and only when you run them in series do you get a better answer.
IP is a perfectly cromulent description of the rights a patent grants to its owner, ie: Intellectual because it's an idea, property becuse you can buy or sell it. There's no dispute that mining rights are property, so why dispute patent rights are property? The thing we should be disputing is the validity of allocating those rights to software and other mathematical abstractions.
Interesting approach, redefine the language and then attack the OP for using the standard definition, have you thought of patenting that idea?
"Responsible disclosure may be too much to ask for -- but I wish that dangerous information was redacted"
WL have not published 15,000 documents that they say would expose informants or troops to harm. According to them there is a coded identifier on such documents that makes them easy to filter out. Also according to WL, a week before they published the documents they gave the whitehouse the opportunity to point out any document that may put people in harms way, the whitehouse refused the offer. - source; Assange interviews, ABC Australia.
The fact that I have not seen anyone point out a single instance of a document that would put someone at risk seems to indicate that WL were telling the truth in that interview.
"Hello? Did nobody READ the summary?"
Yes, did you stop paying attention after you misunderstood the words "100,000 kilometers away"?
You're being silly, "in private" does not mean you can't reveal your vote, it means nobody else is allowed to snoop.
Put your thinking cap back on and re-read my post. The snippet in the OP is not the entire electrol act it's just one paragraph, as with all democractic governments, elections in Oz are by secret ballot and the law in Oz takes the privacy of the secret ballot very seriously (eg: see the recent kurffufle about blind people and their right to a secret ballot).
"Its sad how people have such skewed priorities."
Warning #3675; Self referential post.
Family First is a far-right "Christian" party, their only senator is a self-confessed creationist, he became a vocal AGW "skeptic" after being fetted by US lobbyists such as the Hearland Institute and CEI. He is also a key proponent behind the intenet filter, at least he was until Conroy put his anti-abortion sponsers on the proposed blacklist.