Don't get your knickers in a knot. The basic problem here is you do not understand what science is and therfore have no point of reference to determine quality. Your demand for proof demonstrates your ignorance on the subject (note: 'ignorance' is not an insult here, it simply means you don't know something). I recommend you read Carl Sagan's "Demon haunted world" as a starting point for understanding the concept of scientific skepticisim.
If you are really interested in climatology talk to some climatologists. If nothing else they may help aleviate your ignorance of how and why science works.
And at least have a go at reading the IPCC reports before you demand evidence from me that is widely available (in particular try to understand how figure 2 in the 2007 SPM was derived).
"Sadly, though, it looks like the idea of biofuels is going to get discredited by the lamebrained alcohol-from-corn debacle."
Biofuels are also rapidly changing Borneo's rainforests into palm oil plantations, so much so that it has caused the EU to rethink their policy. With current technology, there simply isn't enough room left on the planet to produce food AND fuel in the quantities required.
The alcohol from corn thing is just plain old corporate welfare, it has nothing to do with sustainability.
What they dicovered is the first scientific evidence for the theory that culture evolves. The term 'scientific proof' is an oxymoron used in earnest by commentators without a clue, but in this case neither TFA or TFS claim to have proven anything.
There are many definitions for irony, I was thinking along the lines of "the difference between how you might expect something to be and how it actually is". The fact that this is a nerd site enhances the irony.
Please define 'scientific proof', from what I understand 'proof' is a term that only makes sense in axionomic systems.
You also don't have to look far to see people are cautious about change when lives are at stake, just ask any bridge builder.
Your political argument is OT and even if were relevant it falls flat when you compare modern China with Mao's cultural revolution.
Finally I don't think tautologic means what you think it does.
BTW: Your criticisim that 'it's just an example' is valid but it does not mean the study is not scientific, it simply means the theory is not as robust as one that has been tested many times in many ways. First 'examples' of this kind are known as 'scientific breakthroughs' no matter how inconsequential the subject may seem to be to outsiders.
I think they were refering to the known universe and alluding to natural lasers.
In contrast the best particle beams on the planet get a few gold atoms to near light speed, while the natural ones can easily get the planet Jupiter moving at that pace.
"These findings must make useful predictions and correlations with reality."
Such as the retreat of glaciers, the dissapearance of artic sea ice, the rate of temprature change, desertification, that kind of thing? And you say you have studied this and can't find anything? You claim to uphold the ideals of science but then state trend doesn't matter?
A word of advice: People don't attack you because of 'personality', they just enjoy beating up loudmouth fools as much as loudmouth fools enjoy trolling.
How is giving someone a tax break the same as giving them a subsidy?
Because both depend on the recipient to invest their own money in a certain way before they get either a reduction in their tax bill or a cash payment. The main difference is that to recieve a tax break you must first have a tax liability.
"It's the consumers who really pay the tax."
...and prey tell what doesn't the 'consumer' pay for, and who amoungst us is not a 'consumer'?
And you forget Clinton attacked OBL's camp with tomahawks and Bush bombed the wrong country. You also mistake me for a fan of Clinton's foriegn policy, donating $2B of attack choppers to Burma was not a good move. The biggest fear the rest the planet has is that all americans actually think like the myopic dribble that so freely flows from your keyboard.
The most pressing question is where do you grow food and position dams when rainfall patterns change and mountain glaciers dissapear? Here in SE Australia we have found out the hard way that a 20% drop in rainfall dictates a 60% drop in run-off, as a result our 'breadbasket' (the 4th largest in the world) is rapidly turning into desert. Having said that relocating Bangladesh and a large chunk of India and China is neither cheap nor easy.
Reducing C02 will very likely boost the economy just like every other major shift in infrastucture has done in the past. Sure the fossil fuel industry may be the major loser because of the shift but I don't see anyone crying over the demise of buggy whip manafacturers, nor do I see lines of unemployed stable hands. The cost of ignoring the root cause and treating the symptoms will continue to rise until the economy itself dies.
Trick question: The US (and until recently, Australia) have both been adamant that Kyoto will 'ruin the economy', yet at the same time they both claim to be 'on track' to meeting the Kyoto targets, so which statement is a lie?
Actually OBL stated that "US bombs raining on Lebannon during the 80's" was his initial motivation. Your troll does nothing but remind others why they want to attack you, here in Oz terror attacks on our nationals were unheard of until Bush got into the picture.
That's why the concept of statistical significance exists.
The hypothisis is that terrorist attacks are NOT highly correlated (ie: they are in fact 'random surprises'). If this is true then you expect to find what is true for the pattern 'abc' is also true for every other three letter pattern. If it is not then the pattern 'abc' is significant.
Significance does not mean certain, nor does it mean the correct conclusion is drawn, but it can rule out the 'random surprise' theory.
Yes H20 is a greenhouse gas in that it traps heat, but the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temprature and pressure. In other words the H20 content of the atmosphere is stable. The only side effect of releasing 10Gt/pa of water vapour would be 10Gt/pa more rain (good thing if it all fell here in SE Australia).
The side effect of releasing the current 10Gt/pa of CO2 is that 7Gt of it will not be absorbed back into the biosphere. Some of it stays in the atmosphere and heats things up. The rest of it will dissolve in the oceans raising their acidity, which in turn lowers the planktonic biomass, which then lowers the amount of CO2 the biosphere can convert to limestone, which means next year more CO2 hangs around,....rinse & repeat until the blue globe of death appears.
BTW: Climatologists realise CO2 is not the only problem gas, they take this into account by using a standard unit called CO2_equivalents, the units are also used to quantify cooling effects such as reflection from ice. Personally I think it's confusing and can't fathom why W/m2 is so hard for policy makers to deal with, but IANAC or a policy maker.
Sorry, I come here to feed my pedantic urges, doesn't eveybody?;)
The implant was created here in Oz by the University of Melbourne and a private company. I think 'bionic ear' may be (or was) a trademark or company in the early commercialization. I can't remember all the details but for some reason the term stayed in common usage here in Melbourne. Incidently, a wiki search for bionic ear shows it understands strine.
"I would guess most of us are in the hope/dreams stage"
I for one am well past the "take the cheque and fuck off" stage, I've survived the "working single dad" stage and the "middle age disco heart attack" stage. I think the "indifferent old fart" stage is next, I'd ask dad but he's in the "surprised to be alive" stage and mostly just grins like a child.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I should have said "What the claim to have discovered..."
Don't get your knickers in a knot. The basic problem here is you do not understand what science is and therfore have no point of reference to determine quality. Your demand for proof demonstrates your ignorance on the subject (note: 'ignorance' is not an insult here, it simply means you don't know something). I recommend you read Carl Sagan's "Demon haunted world" as a starting point for understanding the concept of scientific skepticisim.
If you are really interested in climatology talk to some climatologists. If nothing else they may help aleviate your ignorance of how and why science works.
And at least have a go at reading the IPCC reports before you demand evidence from me that is widely available (in particular try to understand how figure 2 in the 2007 SPM was derived).
"Sadly, though, it looks like the idea of biofuels is going to get discredited by the lamebrained alcohol-from-corn debacle."
Biofuels are also rapidly changing Borneo's rainforests into palm oil plantations, so much so that it has caused the EU to rethink their policy. With current technology, there simply isn't enough room left on the planet to produce food AND fuel in the quantities required.
The alcohol from corn thing is just plain old corporate welfare, it has nothing to do with sustainability.
What they dicovered is the first scientific evidence for the theory that culture evolves. The term 'scientific proof' is an oxymoron used in earnest by commentators without a clue, but in this case neither TFA or TFS claim to have proven anything.
There are many definitions for irony, I was thinking along the lines of "the difference between how you might expect something to be and how it actually is". The fact that this is a nerd site enhances the irony.
Please define 'scientific proof', from what I understand 'proof' is a term that only makes sense in axionomic systems.
You also don't have to look far to see people are cautious about change when lives are at stake, just ask any bridge builder.
Your political argument is OT and even if were relevant it falls flat when you compare modern China with Mao's cultural revolution.
Finally I don't think tautologic means what you think it does.
BTW: Your criticisim that 'it's just an example' is valid but it does not mean the study is not scientific, it simply means the theory is not as robust as one that has been tested many times in many ways. First 'examples' of this kind are known as 'scientific breakthroughs' no matter how inconsequential the subject may seem to be to outsiders.
Kind of an ironic post since nobody is claiming proof.
I think they were refering to the known universe and alluding to natural lasers.
In contrast the best particle beams on the planet get a few gold atoms to near light speed, while the natural ones can easily get the planet Jupiter moving at that pace.
The disco of death!
Blowfish with fricken lasers?
"These findings must make useful predictions and correlations with reality."
Such as the retreat of glaciers, the dissapearance of artic sea ice, the rate of temprature change, desertification, that kind of thing? And you say you have studied this and can't find anything? You claim to uphold the ideals of science but then state trend doesn't matter?
A word of advice: People don't attack you because of 'personality', they just enjoy beating up loudmouth fools as much as loudmouth fools enjoy trolling.
Sigh - looks like timmarhy's anti-science mates modded him 'insightfull' again.
"Who really cares about the environment?"
Why do you insist on parroting ultra-conservative propoganda? Do you not have an arse of your own to pluck 'facts' from?
No, no, don't tell me, let me guess. Your an unemployed salmon fisherman living in the Ohio valley?
How is giving someone a tax break the same as giving them a subsidy?
...and prey tell what doesn't the 'consumer' pay for, and who amoungst us is not a 'consumer'?
Because both depend on the recipient to invest their own money in a certain way before they get either a reduction in their tax bill or a cash payment. The main difference is that to recieve a tax break you must first have a tax liability.
"It's the consumers who really pay the tax."
"Dogs on the other hand, show affection, love, and loyalty to their owner."
Don't underestimate pigs, they are roughly on par with a dog in all the traits you mention, provided of course they are reared in a simlar manner.
In some parts of Asia dogs are (illegaly) treated much worse than cattle, I can't imagine that those people see them as pets.
And you forget Clinton attacked OBL's camp with tomahawks and Bush bombed the wrong country. You also mistake me for a fan of Clinton's foriegn policy, donating $2B of attack choppers to Burma was not a good move. The biggest fear the rest the planet has is that all americans actually think like the myopic dribble that so freely flows from your keyboard.
The most pressing question is where do you grow food and position dams when rainfall patterns change and mountain glaciers dissapear? Here in SE Australia we have found out the hard way that a 20% drop in rainfall dictates a 60% drop in run-off, as a result our 'breadbasket' (the 4th largest in the world) is rapidly turning into desert. Having said that relocating Bangladesh and a large chunk of India and China is neither cheap nor easy.
Reducing C02 will very likely boost the economy just like every other major shift in infrastucture has done in the past. Sure the fossil fuel industry may be the major loser because of the shift but I don't see anyone crying over the demise of buggy whip manafacturers, nor do I see lines of unemployed stable hands. The cost of ignoring the root cause and treating the symptoms will continue to rise until the economy itself dies.
Trick question: The US (and until recently, Australia) have both been adamant that Kyoto will 'ruin the economy', yet at the same time they both claim to be 'on track' to meeting the Kyoto targets, so which statement is a lie?
Sigh - there are many other types of distribution and a simple plot will discover most of them in raw data.
You are obviously one of these people who think the worst side effect of AGW will be wet feet.
Actually OBL stated that "US bombs raining on Lebannon during the 80's" was his initial motivation. Your troll does nothing but remind others why they want to attack you, here in Oz terror attacks on our nationals were unheard of until Bush got into the picture.
That's why the concept of statistical significance exists.
The hypothisis is that terrorist attacks are NOT highly correlated (ie: they are in fact 'random surprises'). If this is true then you expect to find what is true for the pattern 'abc' is also true for every other three letter pattern. If it is not then the pattern 'abc' is significant.
Significance does not mean certain, nor does it mean the correct conclusion is drawn, but it can rule out the 'random surprise' theory.
I for one look forward to reading his rebuttal in the the journal of science.
Yes H20 is a greenhouse gas in that it traps heat, but the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temprature and pressure. In other words the H20 content of the atmosphere is stable. The only side effect of releasing 10Gt/pa of water vapour would be 10Gt/pa more rain (good thing if it all fell here in SE Australia).
The side effect of releasing the current 10Gt/pa of CO2 is that 7Gt of it will not be absorbed back into the biosphere. Some of it stays in the atmosphere and heats things up. The rest of it will dissolve in the oceans raising their acidity, which in turn lowers the planktonic biomass, which then lowers the amount of CO2 the biosphere can convert to limestone, which means next year more CO2 hangs around,....rinse & repeat until the blue globe of death appears.
BTW: Climatologists realise CO2 is not the only problem gas, they take this into account by using a standard unit called CO2_equivalents, the units are also used to quantify cooling effects such as reflection from ice. Personally I think it's confusing and can't fathom why W/m2 is so hard for policy makers to deal with, but IANAC or a policy maker.
Sorry, I come here to feed my pedantic urges, doesn't eveybody? ;)
The implant was created here in Oz by the University of Melbourne and a private company. I think 'bionic ear' may be (or was) a trademark or company in the early commercialization. I can't remember all the details but for some reason the term stayed in common usage here in Melbourne. Incidently, a wiki search for bionic ear shows it understands strine.
"I would guess most of us are in the hope/dreams stage"
I for one am well past the "take the cheque and fuck off" stage, I've survived the "working single dad" stage and the "middle age disco heart attack" stage. I think the "indifferent old fart" stage is next, I'd ask dad but he's in the "surprised to be alive" stage and mostly just grins like a child.
Go away, I don't have a lawn!