"What's so bad about not wanting to deal with someone's reaction? I'm sure they don't tell you the sex sucked right after you're done... just as you probably don't tell them it's the arse that makes them look fat not the jeans. Small lies, it's what holds relationships together" - especially when both sides appreciate the thought that goes into the lies.
I think you are missing the signifgance of the 200ft claim that others have pointed out.
"whenever I see a statement from the military (any military) I automatically question its truthfulness."
Agreed, but the only reason to lie about such a "game changer" would be if the US knew, (say via supercomputer sims), that this avenue of bunker busting research was a dead-end. It seems unlikely but if it was the case then the "200ft" lie would be a tempting red-herring for other nations BBB's (Bunker Busting Boffins).
N. Korea's regime is a puss-filled boil on the face of humanity but I don't think it's an "appropriate approach" to use an international treaty as toilet paper just to give their tin-pot dictator a taste of reality.
Some power companies in Australia threatened the govt in that manner over their cap and trade legislation about 2yrs ago. The govt simply ignored their obvious bluff.
I agree that GP has done some great things in the areas where the science matches their dogma. I don't find GP's current psuedo-scientific nonsense inspiring, I find it dissapointing given it's roots. Thier opposition to GM food is total fucking nonsense and their opposition to reactors is a couple of decades behind other greenies.
I just blew off some mod points to answer this. An oil painting has terrible resolution, get up close and you can only see dawbs of paint. Stand back and those dawbs of paint turn into tiny details that look almost photo realistic.
The skill of the artist is not to acurately paint what is in front of him, the skill is to trick the veiwers brain into seeing what artist wants them to see. The "high resolution" of the Mona Lisa when viewed from a few feet is simply your brain filling out the details that are not actually there when you examine the painting closely.
It's not just comprehension skills. There are plenty of educated people here who keep tossing up links to the WUWT and "icecap" websites as evidence that AGW is not real. Some of these people can read studies but for some reason they give vastly more weight to the hero "scientist" with a book, a website and some think-tank money than they do to any of the thousands of reputable scientific institutions who have released hundereds of thousands of statements, studies and reports on AGW.
You guessed right, I got the Dell thing by googling "apple greenwash" and lookig at the headlines, then I lost interest. GP link thier causes to Apple and other high profile brands for publicity.
I've been a greenie since the 70's, GP's political ideologists took over their scientific foundations decades ago. Many of the founders have left in disgust, particularly after they started campaingning against chloride in the late 90's. You still hear people say chlorine in water should be banned after GP's stupid campaign against what is probably the most effective heath measure of the 20th century in terms of number of deaths prevented. Personally I blame GP for many people's conflation of greenies and ludites.
"Temporary vortices aside, I think that Sir Isaac Newton might take issue with this statement."
Well yes if you put the vorticies (turbulance) to one side you have probaly eleminated the mode of travel for the water. Customary car analogy: If I take the wheels of my car it will no longer roll down hill.
Looks to me that Dell is accusing them of greenwashing, GP are buying it, I can't be bothered digging to see if there is any truth to it, there are bigger fish to fry.
That reply seems to be an emerging binary slashdot meme. It's totally reflexive, no hint of any non-binary thought process.
A Hint: It's the increasing incidence of the clouds that is being "explained" by increased water vapour from rockets. Rockets obviously don't explain 19th century occurences of the phenomena recorded just a few years after Krakatoa (1883).
A Clue: You will get a better response if you attempt to debunk something that is actually being claimed. It's a bit disconcerting when you attack the nonsensical thoughts you project into other people's heads.
"why should I care about anyone's connections to the Heartland Institute?"
Because they are lobbyists that are as demonstrably wrong as the young earth creationists and even more anti-social than scientology or jesus stickers on science books. Their pet polycritters are senator Inhofe and ex-senator Malcom Wallop.
Ignorance I can understand but these people deliberatly piss in the fountain of knowledge that comes from science and many of the individuals involved have done so before by providing "tobacco scientists" for the tabacco industry.
"I have brought up the fact that there are problems with..."
Are you saying that this pushes things outside of the stated certainties because unless you are and can back it with solid evidence, it's irrelevent detail. Nobody thinks the models are perfect but they most assuredly think they are useful.
If you are interested, the most measured starting points I can think of giving you are Roger Pielke Sr's work at climatesci.org and Lucia Liljegren's statistical analyses at rankexploits.com/musings.
You must be kidding, you take a guy who until recently, when it seems senility set in, was only ever on the fringes of any genuine debates and call that measured? As you know Mann and Mackyntre had a debate about 5yrs ago that ended in a congressional inquiry into Mann's 1997 hockey stick paper. The NAS were called in to testify on the merits of both, Mann's paper was vindicated bt NAS even though it had minor errors in certainty levels, NAS testimony here. Mackyntre has not come up with anything new since then, Mann published a follow up paper in Science (the journal "Science" is published by NAS who CONSTRUCTIVELY critsised his first paper).
"* Have you read some of the responses to the reviewers' comments for the IPCC reports? If you had, you would hear alarm bells ringing. More to the point, the IPCC chapters contain significant amounts of the lead authors own work: the reports are *not* independent reviews."
-1 False. -1 Ad-hom.
"I can't work out whether you genuinely believe the science of AGW is rock solid and admits of no debate or whether you're so hung up on the precautionary principle that you think open debate is too dangerous to allow."
You're not irrational you're irrelevant. Why should I chase around and answer your trolls when you offer not one scrap of evidence? I call you a troll because you claim to have "done research" yet your posts are completely at odds with even the most basic scientific facts anyone can look up on WP.
"If the science were sound, such verbal sparring would not be needed."
Are you kidding me your anti-science trolls are no better than those of a young earth creationist, evolutionary biology has been around for 150yrs and there is still no shortage of YECs.
If you have an ounce of scientific skepticism in you, you will question you're own sources rarther than demanding I give you what amounts to text book refrences. When you discover you have been conned by the ex-tabacco lobbyists at the heartland institute you will probably be quite angry.
Don't feel bad we all fall for sciencey corporate propoganda at least once. WP is a good place to start any research when you have it as wrong as you do or you could just look up the basic facts on global warming at NASA, NAS, CSIRO, Harvard or any reputable scientific institution you can think of. Literally thousands of these reputable institions from all across the globe have actually got togther under the banner of IPCC and every four years produce a definitive statement on the science of climate change. The two decades of IPCC reports are prossibly the most rigorous scientific assesment mankind has ever undertaken on a single problem. They use a paltry budget of $5-6M/yr, all reviewers and authours are scientists most of whom represent a credible scientific institution, none of the reviewers or authours are paid for their work. Compare that rigour to (say) the WUWT or ICECAP sites
AFAIK - The best explaination has always been rockets, photos and comentry of the clouds have been posted on APOD several times. The previous/. article is the first time I recall hearing it linked to AGW by an atmospheric scientist.
"I weld as a hobby and in all the welding shops I've been in, in all the classes, I've never seen an acetylene tank go off. And with all the welders I've ever met in all those places, maybe one has ever seen a tank go off. Is it something with your gauges over there? The tank construction? Seems to happen a lot more there than it does here."
I own a fridge, most people I know own or use a fridge, in the last 50yrs I have only ever seen one fridge explode and that was in a house fire. The firefighters at that fire told me exploding fridges are a common occurance, but what the hell do they know?
Slashdot Mirror
Murdoch is pretty far to the left
Compared to who? - Attila the hun?
Quagaaaaaaaaaaaar!
Those particles will/have become a geological marker, there's not a beach in the world where a handfull of sand does not contain them.
"What's so bad about not wanting to deal with someone's reaction? I'm sure they don't tell you the sex sucked right after you're done ... just as you probably don't tell them it's the arse that makes them look fat not the jeans. Small lies, it's what holds relationships together" - especially when both sides appreciate the thought that goes into the lies.
Agreed, it's the hat that makes the rider look like a "pedo".
"Granted, this doesn't seem that difficult"
I think you are missing the signifgance of the 200ft claim that others have pointed out.
"whenever I see a statement from the military (any military) I automatically question its truthfulness."
Agreed, but the only reason to lie about such a "game changer" would be if the US knew, (say via supercomputer sims), that this avenue of bunker busting research was a dead-end. It seems unlikely but if it was the case then the "200ft" lie would be a tempting red-herring for other nations BBB's (Bunker Busting Boffins).
N. Korea's regime is a puss-filled boil on the face of humanity but I don't think it's an "appropriate approach" to use an international treaty as toilet paper just to give their tin-pot dictator a taste of reality.
It's not a club, it's an exploding rock.
"it's how it makes you look..."
I think it's an instinctual thing, the rider is literally putting themselves on a pedestal. Sort of like a poor man's pope-mobile.
"I'm with the utilities on this, there is NO reason to pay those people more than the current market value for, err... current... :-)"
What did the govt/consumer get in exchange for 20yrs of free carbon credits to Xcel?
Some power companies in Australia threatened the govt in that manner over their cap and trade legislation about 2yrs ago. The govt simply ignored their obvious bluff.
I agree that GP has done some great things in the areas where the science matches their dogma. I don't find GP's current psuedo-scientific nonsense inspiring, I find it dissapointing given it's roots. Thier opposition to GM food is total fucking nonsense and their opposition to reactors is a couple of decades behind other greenies.
I just blew off some mod points to answer this. An oil painting has terrible resolution, get up close and you can only see dawbs of paint. Stand back and those dawbs of paint turn into tiny details that look almost photo realistic.
The skill of the artist is not to acurately paint what is in front of him, the skill is to trick the veiwers brain into seeing what artist wants them to see. The "high resolution" of the Mona Lisa when viewed from a few feet is simply your brain filling out the details that are not actually there when you examine the painting closely.
We don't export it, it escapes.
It's not just comprehension skills. There are plenty of educated people here who keep tossing up links to the WUWT and "icecap" websites as evidence that AGW is not real. Some of these people can read studies but for some reason they give vastly more weight to the hero "scientist" with a book, a website and some think-tank money than they do to any of the thousands of reputable scientific institutions who have released hundereds of thousands of statements, studies and reports on AGW.
You guessed right, I got the Dell thing by googling "apple greenwash" and lookig at the headlines, then I lost interest. GP link thier causes to Apple and other high profile brands for publicity.
I've been a greenie since the 70's, GP's political ideologists took over their scientific foundations decades ago. Many of the founders have left in disgust, particularly after they started campaingning against chloride in the late 90's. You still hear people say chlorine in water should be banned after GP's stupid campaign against what is probably the most effective heath measure of the 20th century in terms of number of deaths prevented. Personally I blame GP for many people's conflation of greenies and ludites.
"Temporary vortices aside, I think that Sir Isaac Newton might take issue with this statement."
Well yes if you put the vorticies (turbulance) to one side you have probaly eleminated the mode of travel for the water. Customary car analogy: If I take the wheels of my car it will no longer roll down hill.
Looks to me that Dell is accusing them of greenwashing, GP are buying it, I can't be bothered digging to see if there is any truth to it, there are bigger fish to fry.
That reply seems to be an emerging binary slashdot meme. It's totally reflexive, no hint of any non-binary thought process.
A Hint: It's the increasing incidence of the clouds that is being "explained" by increased water vapour from rockets. Rockets obviously don't explain 19th century occurences of the phenomena recorded just a few years after Krakatoa (1883).
A Clue: You will get a better response if you attempt to debunk something that is actually being claimed. It's a bit disconcerting when you attack the nonsensical thoughts you project into other people's heads.
Yeah you got me, it's one giant conspiracy. The whole cult is siting here in funny hats laughing at you.
"why should I care about anyone's connections to the Heartland Institute?"
Because they are lobbyists that are as demonstrably wrong as the young earth creationists and even more anti-social than scientology or jesus stickers on science books. Their pet polycritters are senator Inhofe and ex-senator Malcom Wallop.
Ignorance I can understand but these people deliberatly piss in the fountain of knowledge that comes from science and many of the individuals involved have done so before by providing "tobacco scientists" for the tabacco industry.
"I have brought up the fact that there are problems with..."
Are you saying that this pushes things outside of the stated certainties because unless you are and can back it with solid evidence, it's irrelevent detail. Nobody thinks the models are perfect but they most assuredly think they are useful.
If you are interested, the most measured starting points I can think of giving you are Roger Pielke Sr's work at climatesci.org and Lucia Liljegren's statistical analyses at rankexploits.com/musings.
You must be kidding, you take a guy who until recently, when it seems senility set in, was only ever on the fringes of any genuine debates and call that measured? As you know Mann and Mackyntre had a debate about 5yrs ago that ended in a congressional inquiry into Mann's 1997 hockey stick paper. The NAS were called in to testify on the merits of both, Mann's paper was vindicated bt NAS even though it had minor errors in certainty levels, NAS testimony here. Mackyntre has not come up with anything new since then, Mann published a follow up paper in Science (the journal "Science" is published by NAS who CONSTRUCTIVELY critsised his first paper).
"* Have you read some of the responses to the reviewers' comments for the IPCC reports? If you had, you would hear alarm bells ringing. More to the point, the IPCC chapters contain significant amounts of the lead authors own work: the reports are *not* independent reviews."
-1 False. -1 Ad-hom.
"I can't work out whether you genuinely believe the science of AGW is rock solid and admits of no debate or whether you're so hung up on the precautionary principle that you think open debate is too dangerous to allow."
-1 When_did_you_stop_beating_your_wife?
You're not irrational you're irrelevant. Why should I chase around and answer your trolls when you offer not one scrap of evidence? I call you a troll because you claim to have "done research" yet your posts are completely at odds with even the most basic scientific facts anyone can look up on WP.
"If the science were sound, such verbal sparring would not be needed."
Are you kidding me your anti-science trolls are no better than those of a young earth creationist, evolutionary biology has been around for 150yrs and there is still no shortage of YECs.
If you have an ounce of scientific skepticism in you, you will question you're own sources rarther than demanding I give you what amounts to text book refrences. When you discover you have been conned by the ex-tabacco lobbyists at the heartland institute you will probably be quite angry.
Don't feel bad we all fall for sciencey corporate propoganda at least once. WP is a good place to start any research when you have it as wrong as you do or you could just look up the basic facts on global warming at NASA, NAS, CSIRO, Harvard or any reputable scientific institution you can think of. Literally thousands of these reputable institions from all across the globe have actually got togther under the banner of IPCC and every four years produce a definitive statement on the science of climate change. The two decades of IPCC reports are prossibly the most rigorous scientific assesment mankind has ever undertaken on a single problem. They use a paltry budget of $5-6M/yr, all reviewers and authours are scientists most of whom represent a credible scientific institution, none of the reviewers or authours are paid for their work. Compare that rigour to (say) the WUWT or ICECAP sites
The previous article also noted it could have been due to Krakatoa Island sending house sized bits of itself into low earth orbit four years earlier.
AFAIK - The best explaination has always been rockets, photos and comentry of the clouds have been posted on APOD several times. The previous /. article is the first time I recall hearing it linked to AGW by an atmospheric scientist.
"I weld as a hobby and in all the welding shops I've been in, in all the classes, I've never seen an acetylene tank go off. And with all the welders I've ever met in all those places, maybe one has ever seen a tank go off. Is it something with your gauges over there? The tank construction? Seems to happen a lot more there than it does here."
I own a fridge, most people I know own or use a fridge, in the last 50yrs I have only ever seen one fridge explode and that was in a house fire. The firefighters at that fire told me exploding fridges are a common occurance, but what the hell do they know?