Not everyone "gets" the monkeysphere or it's less articulate predesessors, many people belive they are immune to the tribal instincts that have allowed humans to evolve in the first place and that they themselves are somehow incapable of being lead into the murky depths of "inhumanity", unfortunately they often carry guns and ideologies.
BTW: At the end of the WW2 50% of the German population had spent some time in a nazi concentration camp. I agree Jews and Gypsies were a primary target of Hitler's propoganda but does the word "scapegoat" also mean nothing to you? If you look very carefully you will find that the nazi's were nothing more than "cheap labour" capitialists backed by other capitalists residing in the US, some of these financial supporters were themselves Jews.
Ummm, the British supporters were the Protestant's but let's not get bogged down in details, read the link to the monkeysphere, if nothing else it's amusing.
Can someone straighten me out? I seriously don't get the OT mod, is it because the old car was an American brand? If it makes anyone feel better the Ford was made in Australia and I once had a Datsun that caught fire while I was driving it.:)
I bought my first car in 1978, it was a 10yo Ford "muscle car". I bought may last car 2 months ago, it was a 3yo Mazda 6 sports that makes the Ford look like the heavy, unrelaiable, antiquated piece of shit that it truly was.
The first paragraph of your post is covered by the old maxim "extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence", yet you seem to expect the taxpayer to fund extrodinary claims by mediocore scientists who freely admit they can't come up with an answer either way. The way to get funding for the idea that "there's no actual certainty here, and many variables to account for" is to publish papers that point out why people who have given error bars for their certainty and accounted for the many variables, are wrong! And yes, this mostly boils down to mundane details, and only a tiny minority of those details become a revolution (eg: constant speed of light -> relativity). Basically, welcome to the real world where only a handfull scientists have become immortal in the minds of the general population.
"we got [hurricanes] horribly wrong in 2006"
Only if you assume the hurricane season is confined to the N. Atlantic.
"We want to hear the extent of what we really do know"
So I take it you have read the past IPCC reports and are looking forward to the one due out early 2007?
"we want honest research to tear down established theory when it needs tearing down because that's how the scientific method works"
Climate theory has ripped a few gapping holes in the prevailing economic theory recently, not to mention calling into question the "goals" of the industrial revolution.
"We just don't know, and that's all people like me want to hear."
The question in my sig certainly applies here. I have found Realclimate to be an excellent "bootcamp" for what we do and don't "know", provided that is, you are willing to devote the research time required to hear it.
ExonnMobil and some in the coal industry have been clear about the rewards for scientists to distort science in their favour. What is the motivation for all other scientists to distort science in the other direction? As someone who gives grants has pointed out, grants are given to answer the plethora of genuine scientific questions that still remain. Lindzen conspiracy of oppression rings hollow since he himself has been invited to give evidence to political commitees on both sides of the Atlantic, unfortunately he did not come up with anything new and spent most of his time labeling anyone who does not agree with him "alarmists".
I put it to you that Lindzen has his conspiracy theory back to front. As for the congressional debate you mention, it wouldn't happen to be linked to Lindzen or a certain science fiction writer giving "scientific evidence" to the senate would it?
Dragging up oldarguments is a waste of time and resources and is also the main reason why scientists try to ignore to the likes of Lindzen. Naturally Lindzen is entitled to his opinion and the WSJ is entitled to print it, but please remeber others are entitled to be skeptical of that opinion, particularly when it tells only half the story and totally ignores the science that does not serve Lindzen's or the WSJ's agenda. However I do agree "the politics of science is out of hand" when the WSJ repeatedly gives that much column space to what is basically an individuals fringe opinion.
As for people "getting on with the science", here is a short article about the usefullnes of climate models and what goes into them. Here is another one expalining why scientists back the IPCC even though it may not precisely line up with their own views.
You are correct in saying that science dependes on skepticism to progress, you are wrong to assume the IPCC is political dogma that does not represent the culmination of scientific skepticism that you claim is absent from climate research. I humbly suggest you actually read the 2001 version as background for the next installment due early 2007.
"The land captured by the Germans in that war was definitely a welcome bonus, but they didn't fight for land."
Ok my history is a bit shakey here, but Hitler's early propoganda machine was all about how Germany "was robbed" by the treaty that ended WW1. That early propoganda enabled him to walk into Austria as a hero without the need to fight, it was a huge publicity coup.
"They fought for the ideals of the Nazi party."
So what were their "ideals"? Hitler was leading using a "cult of personality", as do most despots.
"an expansionist Ideology"
Yes, and influence over territory and control of resources (including human resources) is what they stand to gain with this expansion.
Most modern wars are about ideology. Starting with WW2.
WW2 was about the axis powers attempting to exert control over the entire globe, in fact the 20th centrury saw a few people make a decent attempt at becoming the first "ruler of the world". All sides in WW2 used ideology and propoganda as "spot the enemy" trainning material for the general population.
"[The IRA fought for] the right to self determination within their homeland"
Yes, they sought to remove Britsh control over a chunk of territory so they could exert influence over it themelves.
The most entertaining explaination I have ever heard as to why "the general population" not only tolerates this destructive behaviour from their leaders, but actively partcipates in it, is give by the monkeysphere
The "cause" is usually along the lines of, "These people are the root of our problems, let's get tough". Once you are on the battlefield the "cause" is your own survival. What people normally think they are going to war "for" is "a better world".
Whilst many people who do the fighting passionately belive in a cause/ideology that is pushed by their leaders. The wars themselves are (as they have always been) about territorial influence (a democratic ME, one China, ect) and control of resources (oil in particular). The difference today is found in the efficientcy of the weapons. "All out war" between two modern and well armed nations is likely to vapourise the primary warmongers on both sides within the first few hours/days.
Yep, I went to school in the 60's & 70's in Australia, I watched a classmate get punched in the face by the head master for fooling around in music class. The parents complained then took the kid out of the school, nothing was done about the head master.
Discipline my kids if they fuck up, but lay a hand on them and I will personally beat you sensless.
I belive in vanilla C that specifying of the size of the array in a formal parameter changes things slightly (for a start, you must pass an array of that particular size), but as you say it is probably optimised away.
"Anyway arrays on the stack are not inherently bad."
Maybe not "inherently bad", but certainly inefficient as regards speed and space since the entire array must be copied to the stack rather than just an array pointer.
"but the artists dont get *shit* when you buy your music there."
AllOfMp3 offers the standard fee to the copyright holders as required by Russian law, the RIAA refused to accept the fee, they want the whole fucking company and then some. None of this is the moral/legal concern of an AllOfMp3 customer.
"It must be nice to 'win' all your arguments by just applying labels to everyone who disagrees with you."
"
How ironic that you titled your post "idiot" and ended it with a name-calling rant.
Probably a realistic solution since much of the inefficientcies come from the army of people employed tracking and arguing about who pays for what and when. Many of them could be "redeployed" to more usefull tasks such as caring for patients or carrying streachers.
Disclaimer: I'm not a health services expert or an economist, a big change needs carefull planning since everyone is "touched".
See, see....I knew there would be a caveate somewhere!
Re:Prediction for 2007: CO2 loses stature
on
Birth of an Island
·
· Score: 1
"Why would there suddenly be an increase in volcanic activity in the last 50 years?"
Apparently melting glaciers have caused a slight increase in sismic activity. Some oddballs think increased sismic activity equates to increased vulcanisim and "disproves" AGW or at least absolves human's of any blame. Kinda like some poeple still insist on perverting science to support a literal interpretation of "The" bible, only they pervert science to support their version of "The" economy.
"The increase in CO2 over the last century would cause an increase in water temperature as well..."
Indeed it has and will continue to do so for another half century even if we stopped all emmissions today, the accompaning "thermal expansion" from the wamer water is a large part of the predicted sea level rises. However the lag between atmosphere warming and ocean warming (that incidently demonstrates cause/effect) means that we are only just now seeing the full effect of the CO2 released in the 50's. Even worse than wet feet is that as the ocean dissolves more CO2 it becomes acidic creating a hostile environment for things on the bottom of the food chain, like phytoplankton and coral. Coral reefs in particular are the "cannaries" of the ocean and 30% of them are now dead.
Mankind (including this little black duck), lacks the enlightenment to eliminate poverty and look after the garden with or without a religion although I suspect we have the ability to do so. The industrial revolution has become Frankenstien's monster turning on it's master first with sophisticated weapons and three-eyed fish, and finally a increasingly likely global famine. Yet I as much as any other would still like a technological fix so my showers can last more than three minutes (where I live the cities are on permenent and increasingly severe water rations). Preferably I would like to see it achived by getting economists "onboard" to suggest ways of "steering" the global economy in the "green" and "human rights" direction (eg: The Stern report) rather than the false greenie vs capitalist dichotomy that has been shoved down our throats since the 70's and has done nothing but squander time./rant
Slashdot Mirror
PS: I'm also not asking for your "help" but thanks anyway.
Yes, it seems that way when you look at Jews, Nazis, Capitalists, ect, and fail to see humans.
Not everyone "gets" the monkeysphere or it's less articulate predesessors, many people belive they are immune to the tribal instincts that have allowed humans to evolve in the first place and that they themselves are somehow incapable of being lead into the murky depths of "inhumanity", unfortunately they often carry guns and ideologies.
BTW: At the end of the WW2 50% of the German population had spent some time in a nazi concentration camp. I agree Jews and Gypsies were a primary target of Hitler's propoganda but does the word "scapegoat" also mean nothing to you? If you look very carefully you will find that the nazi's were nothing more than "cheap labour" capitialists backed by other capitalists residing in the US, some of these financial supporters were themselves Jews.
Ummm, the British supporters were the Protestant's but let's not get bogged down in details, read the link to the monkeysphere, if nothing else it's amusing.
Can someone straighten me out? I seriously don't get the OT mod, is it because the old car was an American brand? If it makes anyone feel better the Ford was made in Australia and I once had a Datsun that caught fire while I was driving it. :)
I bought my first car in 1978, it was a 10yo Ford "muscle car". I bought may last car 2 months ago, it was a 3yo Mazda 6 sports that makes the Ford look like the heavy, unrelaiable, antiquated piece of shit that it truly was.
I'm glad you liked it, it's one of my favorites.
The first paragraph of your post is covered by the old maxim "extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence", yet you seem to expect the taxpayer to fund extrodinary claims by mediocore scientists who freely admit they can't come up with an answer either way. The way to get funding for the idea that "there's no actual certainty here, and many variables to account for" is to publish papers that point out why people who have given error bars for their certainty and accounted for the many variables, are wrong! And yes, this mostly boils down to mundane details, and only a tiny minority of those details become a revolution (eg: constant speed of light -> relativity). Basically, welcome to the real world where only a handfull scientists have become immortal in the minds of the general population.
"we got [hurricanes] horribly wrong in 2006"
Only if you assume the hurricane season is confined to the N. Atlantic.
"We want to hear the extent of what we really do know"
So I take it you have read the past IPCC reports and are looking forward to the one due out early 2007?
"we want honest research to tear down established theory when it needs tearing down because that's how the scientific method works"
Climate theory has ripped a few gapping holes in the prevailing economic theory recently, not to mention calling into question the "goals" of the industrial revolution.
"We just don't know, and that's all people like me want to hear."
The question in my sig certainly applies here. I have found Realclimate to be an excellent "bootcamp" for what we do and don't "know", provided that is, you are willing to devote the research time required to hear it.
ExonnMobil and some in the coal industry have been clear about the rewards for scientists to distort science in their favour. What is the motivation for all other scientists to distort science in the other direction? As someone who gives grants has pointed out, grants are given to answer the plethora of genuine scientific questions that still remain. Lindzen conspiracy of oppression rings hollow since he himself has been invited to give evidence to political commitees on both sides of the Atlantic, unfortunately he did not come up with anything new and spent most of his time labeling anyone who does not agree with him "alarmists".
I put it to you that Lindzen has his conspiracy theory back to front. As for the congressional debate you mention, it wouldn't happen to be linked to Lindzen or a certain science fiction writer giving "scientific evidence" to the senate would it?
Dragging up old arguments is a waste of time and resources and is also the main reason why scientists try to ignore to the likes of Lindzen. Naturally Lindzen is entitled to his opinion and the WSJ is entitled to print it, but please remeber others are entitled to be skeptical of that opinion, particularly when it tells only half the story and totally ignores the science that does not serve Lindzen's or the WSJ's agenda. However I do agree "the politics of science is out of hand" when the WSJ repeatedly gives that much column space to what is basically an individuals fringe opinion.
As for people "getting on with the science", here is a short article about the usefullnes of climate models and what goes into them. Here is another one expalining why scientists back the IPCC even though it may not precisely line up with their own views.
You are correct in saying that science dependes on skepticism to progress, you are wrong to assume the IPCC is political dogma that does not represent the culmination of scientific skepticism that you claim is absent from climate research. I humbly suggest you actually read the 2001 version as background for the next installment due early 2007.
"The land captured by the Germans in that war was definitely a welcome bonus, but they didn't fight for land."
Ok my history is a bit shakey here, but Hitler's early propoganda machine was all about how Germany "was robbed" by the treaty that ended WW1. That early propoganda enabled him to walk into Austria as a hero without the need to fight, it was a huge publicity coup.
"They fought for the ideals of the Nazi party."
So what were their "ideals"? Hitler was leading using a "cult of personality", as do most despots.
"an expansionist Ideology"
Yes, and influence over territory and control of resources (including human resources) is what they stand to gain with this expansion.
Most modern wars are about ideology. Starting with WW2.
WW2 was about the axis powers attempting to exert control over the entire globe, in fact the 20th centrury saw a few people make a decent attempt at becoming the first "ruler of the world". All sides in WW2 used ideology and propoganda as "spot the enemy" trainning material for the general population.
"[The IRA fought for] the right to self determination within their homeland"
Yes, they sought to remove Britsh control over a chunk of territory so they could exert influence over it themelves.
The most entertaining explaination I have ever heard as to why "the general population" not only tolerates this destructive behaviour from their leaders, but actively partcipates in it, is give by the monkeysphere
The "cause" is usually along the lines of, "These people are the root of our problems, let's get tough". Once you are on the battlefield the "cause" is your own survival. What people normally think they are going to war "for" is "a better world".
"ooh, aren't you the hard man."
Is that a rhetorical question or a sexual proposition?
Whilst many people who do the fighting passionately belive in a cause/ideology that is pushed by their leaders. The wars themselves are (as they have always been) about territorial influence (a democratic ME, one China, ect) and control of resources (oil in particular). The difference today is found in the efficientcy of the weapons. "All out war" between two modern and well armed nations is likely to vapourise the primary warmongers on both sides within the first few hours/days.
I think it was the astronomer Patrick Moore" who recently described Gamma Ray bursts as "Alien industrial accidents".
Yep, I went to school in the 60's & 70's in Australia, I watched a classmate get punched in the face by the head master for fooling around in music class. The parents complained then took the kid out of the school, nothing was done about the head master.
Discipline my kids if they fuck up, but lay a hand on them and I will personally beat you sensless.
I belive in vanilla C that specifying of the size of the array in a formal parameter changes things slightly (for a start, you must pass an array of that particular size), but as you say it is probably optimised away.
Ah, my bad, I thought you meant something like...
foo(char str[BIG_NUMBER])
{
"Anyway arrays on the stack are not inherently bad."
Maybe not "inherently bad", but certainly inefficient as regards speed and space since the entire array must be copied to the stack rather than just an array pointer.
Drugs are obviously not effecting someones work-life if the only way to discern the subject has used drugs is a biological test.
Polygraphs have been shown to be nothing more than interogation theater.
The entire population regularly breaks at least a few laws (including the POTUS and the neo-inqusitioners).
"And where did royalties go?"
The standard Russian fees have been offered to the RIAA, but they have refused to accept the payments.
"but the artists dont get *shit* when you buy your music there."
AllOfMp3 offers the standard fee to the copyright holders as required by Russian law, the RIAA refused to accept the fee, they want the whole fucking company and then some. None of this is the moral/legal concern of an AllOfMp3 customer.
"It must be nice to 'win' all your arguments by just applying labels to everyone who disagrees with you." "
How ironic that you titled your post "idiot" and ended it with a name-calling rant.
Probably a realistic solution since much of the inefficientcies come from the army of people employed tracking and arguing about who pays for what and when. Many of them could be "redeployed" to more usefull tasks such as caring for patients or carrying streachers. Disclaimer: I'm not a health services expert or an economist, a big change needs carefull planning since everyone is "touched".
"I don't understand why people even both[er] continuing to have sex when it no longer serves a purpose."
/bighting_sarcasm :)
I wonder if by that logic we should be turning off the lights when a blind person enters the room?
See, see....I knew there would be a caveate somewhere!
"Why would there suddenly be an increase in volcanic activity in the last 50 years?"
/rant
Apparently melting glaciers have caused a slight increase in sismic activity. Some oddballs think increased sismic activity equates to increased vulcanisim and "disproves" AGW or at least absolves human's of any blame. Kinda like some poeple still insist on perverting science to support a literal interpretation of "The" bible, only they pervert science to support their version of "The" economy.
"The increase in CO2 over the last century would cause an increase in water temperature as well..."
Indeed it has and will continue to do so for another half century even if we stopped all emmissions today, the accompaning "thermal expansion" from the wamer water is a large part of the predicted sea level rises. However the lag between atmosphere warming and ocean warming (that incidently demonstrates cause/effect) means that we are only just now seeing the full effect of the CO2 released in the 50's. Even worse than wet feet is that as the ocean dissolves more CO2 it becomes acidic creating a hostile environment for things on the bottom of the food chain, like phytoplankton and coral. Coral reefs in particular are the "cannaries" of the ocean and 30% of them are now dead.
Mankind (including this little black duck), lacks the enlightenment to eliminate poverty and look after the garden with or without a religion although I suspect we have the ability to do so. The industrial revolution has become Frankenstien's monster turning on it's master first with sophisticated weapons and three-eyed fish, and finally a increasingly likely global famine. Yet I as much as any other would still like a technological fix so my showers can last more than three minutes (where I live the cities are on permenent and increasingly severe water rations). Preferably I would like to see it achived by getting economists "onboard" to suggest ways of "steering" the global economy in the "green" and "human rights" direction (eg: The Stern report) rather than the false greenie vs capitalist dichotomy that has been shoved down our throats since the 70's and has done nothing but squander time.