Installing Windows 10 is not a fix for having Microsoft forcibly update your system. Once you have Windows 10, every update acts like this and cannot be rejected.
There's nothing simple about fucking around in the registry.
Really? If you have problem with the registry how do you cope with the file system with all its folders? Or even the nested comments of Slashdot? I think that you are making this out to be a much bigger problem than it really is.
How about they implement blocking autorun of all videos by default unless you whitelist a site. There are really only a couple of video sites in the world that I ever want to have a video run without my intervention.
No, I don't want your video ad (especially with sound). No, I don't want the trailer of your movie or game appearing as the banner on top of every page on your site. No, I don't want an autoplaying video to accompany the perfectly good text version of your news article that just says exactly the same thing.
Never met one that didn't tell the world when and where they ran.
How would you know? If you met a jogger who didn't tell you anything about their jogging then you wouldn't know it. You would just assume that they were non-joggers and your preconceived notions about joggers would remain untested.
Have you committed a crime that kept you from accessing the Internet for that last few years?
Assuming that you haven't also committed a crime, you should be able to link to evidence that you have found on the Internet that the left supports rapist Muslims. That is unless you are just bluffing and going by your gut feeling instead of actual facts.
And if your argument is that "neocons support christians as they always have, and the left supports muslims, even when they rape women", does that mean that neocons support Christians even when they are pedophiles? It's not as if there hasn't been a lot of covering up of priests abusing alter boys over the years.
And no, that is not what I think. I just said it to point out the inconsistency of your statement. I believe that all people would condemn rapists and pedophiles no matter who they are (with the obvious exception of other rapists and pedophiles).
Why is it that whenever anyone uses the phrase "I'll leave this here" it almost invariably links to an irrelevant video. I think that people do it to appear that they are answering a question or providing evidence in the hope that nobody will actually watch the video and realise that they have got nothing.
In this case the video did not even come close to providing the requested citation for the claim that "the left supports muslims, even when they rape women". In fact, all it showed was a video of someone asking "how can we fight an ideological war with weapons... how can you ever win this thing if you don't address it ideologically". Like you responding with an irrelevant video that mentions neither the left or rape, the panelist ignores the question and goes on a rant about how it doesn't matter that most Muslims are peaceful, aren't radical and that they aren't the enemy.
It seems to be a common school of thought in certain ideologies that you don't need to address the question or topic being discussed as long as you answer forcefully. If you can't convince people with a logical argument then do it with a loud one.
The new LG G5 has replaceable battery and an SD card slot spec at 2 TERABYTE! I don't know HOW they know it will handle that much memory.
They know because that is what the SDXC standard supports. I find it incredibly frustrating when manufacturers limit their specifications of the maximum memory card size as the largest card available at the time of release of a product. Then in a few years time, when larger cards become available, you can't be sure if they are supported or not. You just have to try it and see. It gets worse then they just say "SD slot" without specifying which SD standard it really is.
The LG G5 explicitly says microSDXC, so we can look it up even if they hadn't said that it was 2TB.
I'm a little saddened by the fact that Windows 10 now outnumbers Windows 7 in steam's stats. The honest fact is, the plebs don't care about UWP, or even about forced upgrades or telemetry reporting back everything you type, speak or do. Microsoft wins again, thanks largely to the apathetic masses.
Surely if they did care about all those things then they probably wouldn't use Steam. It has forced updates, telemetry reporting (aka achievements), cloud saves (albeit optionally) and DRM. The apathetic masses had already spoken a long time ago.
The gamers on Steam are not representative of the general population. They do care less about privacy and are more interested in getting the latest & greatest in hardware & software. They also want to use DirectX 12, which is a major reason to use Windows 10. Windows 10 use amongst this demographic will always be higher than the average.
Despite Windows having been a "Unicode OS" since the NT days the commandline find and findstr tools still don't support UTF8 and UCS2 encoded files.
This is due to backwards compatibility. PowerShell and select-string supports Unicode fine, but it is the console window itself that is the limiting factor. If you run the PowerShell ISE then it displays the Unicode correctly, but under the console (prior to Windows 10) it just shows question marks. They have reimplemented the console in Windows 10 and PowerShell now displays the Unicode characters correctly.
The command prompt and findstr still don't work, but I suspect that this is considered to be legacy code so I doubt that they will fix this. There is a new shell in town!
How do you know Outlook 2016 was supported when GP called?
I don't know that, but I do know that it was supported at the time that the coward said that it was not.
And since when is calling someone out for being a dick "abusive" -- especially when that person is, in fact, being a dick?
How is it being a dick to provide evidence that they do actually support Outlook 2016? If that is being a dick, then so is providing a link to the Wayback machine to a time six months before the tech support call was made. Or perhaps it is being a dick to use a phrase that you would not personally use, which is simply saying that being literate and educated is "being a dick".
If you'd actually read your own link before posting it...
How convenient that you ignored puto's first link that does show instructions for Outlook 2016. But to be more explicit, look at the email clients page. The clients listed with an asterisk next to the name are not supported by their tech support. Outlook 2016 is listed and it doesn't have an asterisk next to it. Therefore, it is a supported client.
There's no need for you to be a dick.
There is no need to be abusive just because what you claim is not matched by the written evidence on their website.
No, you are the problem. You are fixated with not reducing carbon emissions. You mention alternatives 3, 4 and 5, but give no indication of what these alternatives might be other than to keep repeating the phrase "think outside the box". So why don't you try thinking about it creatively and come up with some ideas. If you want to claim that there is something inherently wrong with reducing carbon emissions, then why not throw some alternative ideas around and we can start looking at them.
I'll give you an alternative to start with: Carbon sequestration. The trouble with that is that 1) it isn't practical (so far), and 2) scientists have already been studying this and there are some large scale projects trying it - which means your claim that the scientific community is fixated on reducing emissions is completely wrong.
I guess that might be why you haven't provided any ideas of your own. You would either have to say something that is already being considered (invalidating your own argument), or you would have to choose something that is in the realm of fantasy like using magic or making a large hat to cover the Earth and block the sun. But hey, don't let that stop you from making claims that those trying to reduce CO2 emissions are narrow-minded and not creative.
I think it's pathetic that with the "free" "upgrade" and all of the insidious, sneaky and aggressive ways that Microsoft has been trying to force Windows 10 on to people that it's still barely beating out outdated, shitty Windows XP.
Even more pathetic is that the free Linux OS is only barely beating out the outdated and shitty Windows 3.1! Seriously, 0.4% are using 3.1.
I have a relative who still uses Windows 3.1 (despite me offering free PCs), but she doesn't connect to the net with such an old device and so would not be counted in those numbers. Mind you, it is probably incredibly secure because nobody would know how to attack such old software, and even if they did nobody would bother making the effort.
Bill Nye he isn't a science guy. He has a Bsc in engineering
He doesn't ever claim to be a climate scientist. All he is doing is repeating what the climate scientists say. That is why he doesn't have to be qualified because he is not trying to claim that all the experts are wrong. He is not trying to say that he knows better than all the people who can be considered to be experts in the field.
The reason why the deniers are so obsessed with Nye's lack of academic qualifications is that they can't actually prove that what he says is wrong.
You say that you are not a troll, but then you link to a troll video. It makes the bogus claim that Bill Nye wants to Clinton to become president so she can get the DOJ to start filing criminal charges and imprisoning global warming skeptics. He then refers to the interview in which he did not mention Hillary Clinton, nor anything about her directing the DOJ to do anything. He did not mention skeptics, and was only talking about company executives who produce the anti-science FUD that they know is incorrect (just like the Enron and tobacco execs).
Here is what else it gets wrong. The word "denier" is not reserved for discussions about holocaust, and to suggest other wise is just being manipulative. But being offended by that term doesn't stop him from calling liberals "fascists". It doesn't stop him from saying that the leftist, tyrannical government will start imprisoning THEN EXTERMINATING Christians!! He then reveals that it is all being directed by Lucifer. Being called a denier seems rather tame compared that vitriol.
I could end there, but there are other lies in the video that need correction. The claim that the leaked emails from Climategate showed that the data had been fabricated and fudged gets traced back to a the choice of a single word in one email. Pretty flimsy. According to NASA, the term global warming was first used in a 1975 paper entitled "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?". Both terms were used together right from the start.
Then there is the ultimate of trolls - 1998. The initial claims were that it was getting colder since 1998, then it was that the warming had stopped, and now the deniers have to say that there is "no significant warming" since that year. And yet the temperature records keep getting broken. And why are people so focused on that one period? If you look at the temperature graphs since modern records began, it is easy to find other periods when the graph levels out, and even goes down substantially. Those periods have never signaled the end of the warming trend. I can't imagine that anyone who uses this claim has not seen a similar graph to the one that I linked above, so why do they think that looking at such a short time frame will be indicative of any trend. The answer must be that they either want to mislead us or they are genuinely stupid and are willing to cherry-pick any data that they can find to match their preconceived ideas.
You didn't bother to wait for an answer to your query before declaring it bogus. You also don't say how many locations you need to make a statistically accurate measurement of global temperatures. Why would a couple of hundred not be enough? If all of the readings showed the same warming trend, how likely is it that the areas not covered would have been simultaneously cooling enough to offset the warming locations?
If you genuinely believe the number of locations are inadequate (and you are not just spewing denier FUD), it should be easy enough for you prove it. Simply look at the newer stations and compare their warming trends with the other, older ones. If there is no real difference then you're claims of the data being wrong will be proven false.
Why would we need to do this? The first example (chosen by the OP) showed measurable warming, and we know that when averaged out most places would show this because that is why the scientists have proclaimed so many of the recent years were the hottest on record. Do you think that they were just guessing?
If you had actually checked the records of 10 cities and found evidence of little to no warning then you would have included that in your post. Since you couldn't demonstrate your assertion to be true then it is obvious that you have just assumed it only and just hoped that nobody would bother to check it for themselves. You guessed.
You have tried to convince us that every bit of evidence that has been shown here is wrong and that all the scientists are wrong, but everything you said is based on guesswork. Don't waste our time.
You have replied me when I have pointed out that a single location is not sufficient to prove the global warming is wrong. So why did you think that a single country was going to be enough?
There is a reason that they say that records began around 1880. It is because the
scientists consider that the number of reading points and the conditions in which they were used is good enough to make statistically accurate measurements. Just because they have improved the quality and number of reading stations doesn't mean that the early measurements were inaccurate.
At the very least, you would need to prove that the readings made in Canada would have differed with the additions of the extra stations. If it made no significant difference then you have worried about nothing.
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person.
That is simply not true. If by cherry picking a single graph you were trying to say that it wasn't noticeable as a person and that is why people don't care about this, how does that lead to you saying that "lets not pretend this isn't a shill post for the AGW debate"? Just because it might be too large a phenomenon to notice personally, doesn't mean that climate change is wrong as you have suggested.
how would you have an average temperature during the day from 1921? would a man sit there and write down the temperature into a ledger every 5 minutes or every hour? You're asking for something that doesn't exist
No, I'm not asking for that. You are the one who brought up the ludicrous requirement of a reading every 5 minutes. In fact, all I have done is look at the graphs that you presented to us. If the maximums and minimums don't show a great variability between the years while the average temperature anomaly has changed considerably, then they can't have just taken a single measurement of the max and min values. They must have taken more readings. If you don't trust the other graphs on that page then why would you trust the first one?
If you look at old temperature records they tend to show the temperature at a given time every day or a maximum and minimum temperature reached during that day.
Forgive me for not taking your word on this, but a citation is required for this claim.
Anyway... if you want to discuss this civilly you'll find me a genial fellow. If you instead want to trade barbs you'll find I know how to draw blood as well as any.
This is coming from the civil person who said "show me the papers I need to sign to make the people that keep harping on about this stuff murder suicide each other" and then say that the whole post this started this was actually shill post by apparently corrupt individuals who "want total dictatorial control over the economy". Yep, calls for murder-suicide and accusations of corruption are the height of civility.
Nobody gives a shit. Not even the people who pretend to.
If nobody gives a shit, then why do stories on climate change generate so many comments? And why did you bother coming here to post about it if you don't care? I suggest that you do actually care.
I'm sure that you cared when you undoubtedly said that global warming was a myth because it was getting cooler since 1998. You probably also cared when you claimed that it was a myth because of the hiatus once it became obvious that the cooling was just the result of 1998 being an outlier year. And I'm sure that you care now when the records are being consistently broken, but this time all you can do is try to distract us from the facts by claiming that nobody actually gives a shit now.
Sorry, we do give a shit, even if you like to pretend that we don't.
Yes you are. You are trying to disprove that global warming - and that the average of all the temperature stations are wrong - because one single station doesn't show the same increase as the entire globe.
And surely you should not be looking at the first graph. It only shows the minimum and maximum temperatures and not how long it spends are the top end of the range throughout the day compared to the minimum. If in 1921 it peaked at the maximum only briefly compared to later years (when it might spend many hours more at the peak) then the average temperature for the day would be lower.
The better graphs to look at are the ones below the min/max temps graph on the links that you provided. Compare the temperature departures from those two links and you see a lot more red (above the 0) on the more recent year. That shows the real temperature difference; that the average temperature over the year has indeed risen since 1921.
How embarrassing it must be for you to have thought that you were smarter than all the climate scientists in the world who do actually know how to read the data. And how arrogant are you to to claim that to disagree with you means that they are all shills. The only one here spewing misinformation is you. I suggest that it is far more likely that it is you who are the shill.
What exactly am I supposed to do about global warming?
It sounds like you are doing what you can about it already without going too radical like changing your profession to become a politician to directly affect policies. A crucial thing to do is ensure you never vote for anyone who is a denier and who wants to gut the scientific institutions so that they stop saying things that don't match their feelings on this matter.
Being confrontational to your neighbors is certainly not going to win any converts. And don't worry about what anybody else is doing. In fact, don't listen to the bullshit spewed by the deniers who claim that there is no point doing the right thing because other countries are not pulling their weight. Both India and China have programs to reduce their environmental impact (see the recent/. post about India's solar power plants). Given the the large populations of those countries, they are much lower on the emissions scale on a per-capita basis. You can't just say "I am just one person" but then not compare your CO2 emissions with "just one person" from China.
Ah yes, the old denier ploy for when you run out of arguments: attack the environmentalist credibility based on your own imagined notion of how I must live. Oh well, I can play that game.
I sold my car last century, and since then we walk, cycle or use mass transit to get around. I don't fly anywhere except when forced to for business. We don't have air conditioning, and our heater died a couple of Winters ago - which we have offset by wearing sensible, warm clothing at home. While it works surprisingly well, it is admittedly detrimental to our social life, so we will have to fix the heater before it gets cold again.
We use low-powered devices in the home. I volunteer to repurpose old computers (and increasingly laptops) from local businesses for use by the disadvantaged - saving them money and reducing landfill. We grow our own vegetables, but not to the extent of being self-sufficient. We have reduced our meat intake, for both health and environmental reasons.
While I have no doubt that there is some room for improvement with our carbon footprint, I feel that we have done a pretty good job without going completely hippie. The sacrifices that we have made go beyond what most people would be willing to do.
You made it necessary to spell out certain basic axioms that everyone else would take for granted. Perhaps I should also say we are talking about human beings, not gods. And on planet earth.
Another lie. Look at your post again (including the part of mine that you quoted):
"If people are putting profits ahead of human lives and the greater good then they should be punished."
What kind of marxist nonsense is that? Profit -is- for human lives and the greater good.
If you think that I made it necessary to spell out basic axioms that others would take for granted, why were you unable to understand my quote which was referring to doing illegal acts that were against the public interest AND would result in punishment. One doesn't call for people to be punished for making profits, but one does call for people to be punished for profiting from illegal activities. It is you who have (deliberately?) misinterpreted what has been said just as you did when you claimed that Bill Nye et al were talking about locking up deniers in general when they were specifically talking about one particular group of people. It is a recurring pattern with you.
Science and scientists may be attacked and misinformation spread about them. There are, thankfully, few limits on free speech. And unless you can formulate some specific theory of crimespeak that is consistent with current law (slander, etc.), stop talking about it. Referring to your quaint notion of "public good" doesn't cut it in court - or here.
It looks like you didn't read the link that I provided earlier, because it talks about (and I even mentioned this) that they have done similar things in the past with the tobacco industry:
In 1998, New York State's Republican Attorney General Dennis Vacco successfully invoked the "corporate death penalty" to revoke the charters of two non-profit tax-exempt tobacco industry front groups, The Tobacco Institute and The Council for Tobacco Research (CTR). The two groups Vacco annulled were creatures of a decade long campaign funded principally by tobacco giant, Brown & Williamson to avoid costly health regulations that would diminish the profit margins of an industry that was killing one out of five of its customers. "Doubt is our Product," explained B&W's notorious 1969 memo outlining the reptilian communications strategy that hatched its front groups.
There is has also been an example (to which I don't have a link at the moment) where shareholders sued their board for not disclosing the scientific risks that the board knew and which they had deliberately hidden from the public. There are many ways that this behavior can be addressed.
If your only response to deniers is to use police instead of evidence you are no longer doing science.
A nice canned response, but it is complete nonsense. You are trying to perpetuate the myth that scientists are trying to silence deniers, when this is about lawmakers going after those spending millions of dollars orchestrating cynical campaigns of misinformation for their own profit. And the people who are talking about this are not "doing science" as you claim. The scientists are using evidence to back their claims, but they are being met with campaigns of FUD and unfounded accusations of corruption. It is hard to match simple, one sentence slogans against climate change with pages of data that nobody can understand.
After all, climate change scientists are deliberately publishing misinformation for financial gain.
Oh look, it is one of those unfounded accusations of corruption. Where is your evidence of this claim? Is there anything like Wei-Hock Soon's price list of "deliverables" including anti-climate change testimony to congress and papers published?
Let's face it, with so many climate researchers out there who would have to be corrupt for there to be such a massive conspiracy to manipulate the entire field of climate science, surely there would be a huge number of leaked documents demonstrating this cash-for-comment. But it turns out that there isn't. Even the huge CRU leaks failed to provide any evidence of nefarious transactions.
I'm sure that you are ready to fire back with some line about scientists getting government grants for which they must toe the line. But most pure science has some government funding involved. Are all those scientists corrupt, or just the ones producing research that you don't like - i.e. in the field of climate science?
Slashdot Mirror
Installing Windows 10 is not a fix for having Microsoft forcibly update your system. Once you have Windows 10, every update acts like this and cannot be rejected.
There's nothing simple about fucking around in the registry.
Really? If you have problem with the registry how do you cope with the file system with all its folders? Or even the nested comments of Slashdot? I think that you are making this out to be a much bigger problem than it really is.
How about they implement blocking autorun of all videos by default unless you whitelist a site. There are really only a couple of video sites in the world that I ever want to have a video run without my intervention.
No, I don't want your video ad (especially with sound). No, I don't want the trailer of your movie or game appearing as the banner on top of every page on your site. No, I don't want an autoplaying video to accompany the perfectly good text version of your news article that just says exactly the same thing.
Never met one that didn't tell the world when and where they ran.
How would you know? If you met a jogger who didn't tell you anything about their jogging then you wouldn't know it. You would just assume that they were non-joggers and your preconceived notions about joggers would remain untested.
Have you committed a crime that kept you from accessing the Internet for that last few years?
Assuming that you haven't also committed a crime, you should be able to link to evidence that you have found on the Internet that the left supports rapist Muslims. That is unless you are just bluffing and going by your gut feeling instead of actual facts.
And if your argument is that "neocons support christians as they always have, and the left supports muslims, even when they rape women", does that mean that neocons support Christians even when they are pedophiles? It's not as if there hasn't been a lot of covering up of priests abusing alter boys over the years.
And no, that is not what I think. I just said it to point out the inconsistency of your statement. I believe that all people would condemn rapists and pedophiles no matter who they are (with the obvious exception of other rapists and pedophiles).
I'll leave this here.
Why is it that whenever anyone uses the phrase "I'll leave this here" it almost invariably links to an irrelevant video. I think that people do it to appear that they are answering a question or providing evidence in the hope that nobody will actually watch the video and realise that they have got nothing.
In this case the video did not even come close to providing the requested citation for the claim that "the left supports muslims, even when they rape women". In fact, all it showed was a video of someone asking "how can we fight an ideological war with weapons... how can you ever win this thing if you don't address it ideologically". Like you responding with an irrelevant video that mentions neither the left or rape, the panelist ignores the question and goes on a rant about how it doesn't matter that most Muslims are peaceful, aren't radical and that they aren't the enemy.
It seems to be a common school of thought in certain ideologies that you don't need to address the question or topic being discussed as long as you answer forcefully. If you can't convince people with a logical argument then do it with a loud one.
The new LG G5 has replaceable battery and an SD card slot spec at 2 TERABYTE! I don't know HOW they know it will handle that much memory.
They know because that is what the SDXC standard supports. I find it incredibly frustrating when manufacturers limit their specifications of the maximum memory card size as the largest card available at the time of release of a product. Then in a few years time, when larger cards become available, you can't be sure if they are supported or not. You just have to try it and see. It gets worse then they just say "SD slot" without specifying which SD standard it really is.
The LG G5 explicitly says microSDXC, so we can look it up even if they hadn't said that it was 2TB.
I'm a little saddened by the fact that Windows 10 now outnumbers Windows 7 in steam's stats. The honest fact is, the plebs don't care about UWP, or even about forced upgrades or telemetry reporting back everything you type, speak or do. Microsoft wins again, thanks largely to the apathetic masses.
Surely if they did care about all those things then they probably wouldn't use Steam. It has forced updates, telemetry reporting (aka achievements), cloud saves (albeit optionally) and DRM. The apathetic masses had already spoken a long time ago.
The gamers on Steam are not representative of the general population. They do care less about privacy and are more interested in getting the latest & greatest in hardware & software. They also want to use DirectX 12, which is a major reason to use Windows 10. Windows 10 use amongst this demographic will always be higher than the average.
Despite Windows having been a "Unicode OS" since the NT days the commandline find and findstr tools still don't support UTF8 and UCS2 encoded files.
This is due to backwards compatibility. PowerShell and select-string supports Unicode fine, but it is the console window itself that is the limiting factor. If you run the PowerShell ISE then it displays the Unicode correctly, but under the console (prior to Windows 10) it just shows question marks. They have reimplemented the console in Windows 10 and PowerShell now displays the Unicode characters correctly.
The command prompt and findstr still don't work, but I suspect that this is considered to be legacy code so I doubt that they will fix this. There is a new shell in town!
How do you know Outlook 2016 was supported when GP called?
I don't know that, but I do know that it was supported at the time that the coward said that it was not.
And since when is calling someone out for being a dick "abusive" -- especially when that person is, in fact, being a dick?
How is it being a dick to provide evidence that they do actually support Outlook 2016? If that is being a dick, then so is providing a link to the Wayback machine to a time six months before the tech support call was made. Or perhaps it is being a dick to use a phrase that you would not personally use, which is simply saying that being literate and educated is "being a dick".
If you'd actually read your own link before posting it...
How convenient that you ignored puto's first link that does show instructions for Outlook 2016. But to be more explicit, look at the email clients page. The clients listed with an asterisk next to the name are not supported by their tech support. Outlook 2016 is listed and it doesn't have an asterisk next to it. Therefore, it is a supported client.
There's no need for you to be a dick.
There is no need to be abusive just because what you claim is not matched by the written evidence on their website.
You are a perfect example of the problem.
No, you are the problem. You are fixated with not reducing carbon emissions. You mention alternatives 3, 4 and 5, but give no indication of what these alternatives might be other than to keep repeating the phrase "think outside the box". So why don't you try thinking about it creatively and come up with some ideas. If you want to claim that there is something inherently wrong with reducing carbon emissions, then why not throw some alternative ideas around and we can start looking at them.
I'll give you an alternative to start with: Carbon sequestration. The trouble with that is that 1) it isn't practical (so far), and 2) scientists have already been studying this and there are some large scale projects trying it - which means your claim that the scientific community is fixated on reducing emissions is completely wrong.
I guess that might be why you haven't provided any ideas of your own. You would either have to say something that is already being considered (invalidating your own argument), or you would have to choose something that is in the realm of fantasy like using magic or making a large hat to cover the Earth and block the sun. But hey, don't let that stop you from making claims that those trying to reduce CO2 emissions are narrow-minded and not creative.
I think it's pathetic that with the "free" "upgrade" and all of the insidious, sneaky and aggressive ways that Microsoft has been trying to force Windows 10 on to people that it's still barely beating out outdated, shitty Windows XP.
Even more pathetic is that the free Linux OS is only barely beating out the outdated and shitty Windows 3.1! Seriously, 0.4% are using 3.1.
I have a relative who still uses Windows 3.1 (despite me offering free PCs), but she doesn't connect to the net with such an old device and so would not be counted in those numbers. Mind you, it is probably incredibly secure because nobody would know how to attack such old software, and even if they did nobody would bother making the effort.
Bill Nye he isn't a science guy. He has a Bsc in engineering
He doesn't ever claim to be a climate scientist. All he is doing is repeating what the climate scientists say. That is why he doesn't have to be qualified because he is not trying to claim that all the experts are wrong. He is not trying to say that he knows better than all the people who can be considered to be experts in the field.
The reason why the deniers are so obsessed with Nye's lack of academic qualifications is that they can't actually prove that what he says is wrong.
You say that you are not a troll, but then you link to a troll video. It makes the bogus claim that Bill Nye wants to Clinton to become president so she can get the DOJ to start filing criminal charges and imprisoning global warming skeptics. He then refers to the interview in which he did not mention Hillary Clinton, nor anything about her directing the DOJ to do anything. He did not mention skeptics, and was only talking about company executives who produce the anti-science FUD that they know is incorrect (just like the Enron and tobacco execs).
Here is what else it gets wrong. The word "denier" is not reserved for discussions about holocaust, and to suggest other wise is just being manipulative. But being offended by that term doesn't stop him from calling liberals "fascists". It doesn't stop him from saying that the leftist, tyrannical government will start imprisoning THEN EXTERMINATING Christians!! He then reveals that it is all being directed by Lucifer. Being called a denier seems rather tame compared that vitriol.
I could end there, but there are other lies in the video that need correction. The claim that the leaked emails from Climategate showed that the data had been fabricated and fudged gets traced back to a the choice of a single word in one email. Pretty flimsy. According to NASA, the term global warming was first used in a 1975 paper entitled "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?". Both terms were used together right from the start.
Then there is the ultimate of trolls - 1998. The initial claims were that it was getting colder since 1998, then it was that the warming had stopped, and now the deniers have to say that there is "no significant warming" since that year. And yet the temperature records keep getting broken. And why are people so focused on that one period? If you look at the temperature graphs since modern records began, it is easy to find other periods when the graph levels out, and even goes down substantially. Those periods have never signaled the end of the warming trend. I can't imagine that anyone who uses this claim has not seen a similar graph to the one that I linked above, so why do they think that looking at such a short time frame will be indicative of any trend. The answer must be that they either want to mislead us or they are genuinely stupid and are willing to cherry-pick any data that they can find to match their preconceived ideas.
You didn't bother to wait for an answer to your query before declaring it bogus. You also don't say how many locations you need to make a statistically accurate measurement of global temperatures. Why would a couple of hundred not be enough? If all of the readings showed the same warming trend, how likely is it that the areas not covered would have been simultaneously cooling enough to offset the warming locations?
If you genuinely believe the number of locations are inadequate (and you are not just spewing denier FUD), it should be easy enough for you prove it. Simply look at the newer stations and compare their warming trends with the other, older ones. If there is no real difference then you're claims of the data being wrong will be proven false.
Why would we need to do this? The first example (chosen by the OP) showed measurable warming, and we know that when averaged out most places would show this because that is why the scientists have proclaimed so many of the recent years were the hottest on record. Do you think that they were just guessing?
If you had actually checked the records of 10 cities and found evidence of little to no warning then you would have included that in your post. Since you couldn't demonstrate your assertion to be true then it is obvious that you have just assumed it only and just hoped that nobody would bother to check it for themselves. You guessed.
You have tried to convince us that every bit of evidence that has been shown here is wrong and that all the scientists are wrong, but everything you said is based on guesswork. Don't waste our time.
You have replied me when I have pointed out that a single location is not sufficient to prove the global warming is wrong. So why did you think that a single country was going to be enough?
There is a reason that they say that records began around 1880. It is because the scientists consider that the number of reading points and the conditions in which they were used is good enough to make statistically accurate measurements. Just because they have improved the quality and number of reading stations doesn't mean that the early measurements were inaccurate.
At the very least, you would need to prove that the readings made in Canada would have differed with the additions of the extra stations. If it made no significant difference then you have worried about nothing.
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person.
That is simply not true. If by cherry picking a single graph you were trying to say that it wasn't noticeable as a person and that is why people don't care about this, how does that lead to you saying that "lets not pretend this isn't a shill post for the AGW debate"? Just because it might be too large a phenomenon to notice personally, doesn't mean that climate change is wrong as you have suggested.
how would you have an average temperature during the day from 1921? would a man sit there and write down the temperature into a ledger every 5 minutes or every hour? You're asking for something that doesn't exist
No, I'm not asking for that. You are the one who brought up the ludicrous requirement of a reading every 5 minutes. In fact, all I have done is look at the graphs that you presented to us. If the maximums and minimums don't show a great variability between the years while the average temperature anomaly has changed considerably, then they can't have just taken a single measurement of the max and min values. They must have taken more readings. If you don't trust the other graphs on that page then why would you trust the first one?
If you look at old temperature records they tend to show the temperature at a given time every day or a maximum and minimum temperature reached during that day.
Forgive me for not taking your word on this, but a citation is required for this claim.
Anyway... if you want to discuss this civilly you'll find me a genial fellow. If you instead want to trade barbs you'll find I know how to draw blood as well as any.
This is coming from the civil person who said "show me the papers I need to sign to make the people that keep harping on about this stuff murder suicide each other" and then say that the whole post this started this was actually shill post by apparently corrupt individuals who "want total dictatorial control over the economy". Yep, calls for murder-suicide and accusations of corruption are the height of civility.
Nobody gives a shit. Not even the people who pretend to.
If nobody gives a shit, then why do stories on climate change generate so many comments? And why did you bother coming here to post about it if you don't care? I suggest that you do actually care.
I'm sure that you cared when you undoubtedly said that global warming was a myth because it was getting cooler since 1998. You probably also cared when you claimed that it was a myth because of the hiatus once it became obvious that the cooling was just the result of 1998 being an outlier year. And I'm sure that you care now when the records are being consistently broken, but this time all you can do is try to distract us from the facts by claiming that nobody actually gives a shit now.
Sorry, we do give a shit, even if you like to pretend that we don't.
I'm not cherry picking these
Yes you are. You are trying to disprove that global warming - and that the average of all the temperature stations are wrong - because one single station doesn't show the same increase as the entire globe.
And surely you should not be looking at the first graph. It only shows the minimum and maximum temperatures and not how long it spends are the top end of the range throughout the day compared to the minimum. If in 1921 it peaked at the maximum only briefly compared to later years (when it might spend many hours more at the peak) then the average temperature for the day would be lower.
The better graphs to look at are the ones below the min/max temps graph on the links that you provided. Compare the temperature departures from those two links and you see a lot more red (above the 0) on the more recent year. That shows the real temperature difference; that the average temperature over the year has indeed risen since 1921.
How embarrassing it must be for you to have thought that you were smarter than all the climate scientists in the world who do actually know how to read the data. And how arrogant are you to to claim that to disagree with you means that they are all shills. The only one here spewing misinformation is you. I suggest that it is far more likely that it is you who are the shill.
What exactly am I supposed to do about global warming?
It sounds like you are doing what you can about it already without going too radical like changing your profession to become a politician to directly affect policies. A crucial thing to do is ensure you never vote for anyone who is a denier and who wants to gut the scientific institutions so that they stop saying things that don't match their feelings on this matter.
Being confrontational to your neighbors is certainly not going to win any converts. And don't worry about what anybody else is doing. In fact, don't listen to the bullshit spewed by the deniers who claim that there is no point doing the right thing because other countries are not pulling their weight. Both India and China have programs to reduce their environmental impact (see the recent /. post about India's solar power plants). Given the the large populations of those countries, they are much lower on the emissions scale on a per-capita basis. You can't just say "I am just one person" but then not compare your CO2 emissions with "just one person" from China.
Ah yes, the old denier ploy for when you run out of arguments: attack the environmentalist credibility based on your own imagined notion of how I must live. Oh well, I can play that game.
I sold my car last century, and since then we walk, cycle or use mass transit to get around. I don't fly anywhere except when forced to for business. We don't have air conditioning, and our heater died a couple of Winters ago - which we have offset by wearing sensible, warm clothing at home. While it works surprisingly well, it is admittedly detrimental to our social life, so we will have to fix the heater before it gets cold again.
We use low-powered devices in the home. I volunteer to repurpose old computers (and increasingly laptops) from local businesses for use by the disadvantaged - saving them money and reducing landfill. We grow our own vegetables, but not to the extent of being self-sufficient. We have reduced our meat intake, for both health and environmental reasons.
While I have no doubt that there is some room for improvement with our carbon footprint, I feel that we have done a pretty good job without going completely hippie. The sacrifices that we have made go beyond what most people would be willing to do.
You made it necessary to spell out certain basic axioms that everyone else would take for granted. Perhaps I should also say we are talking about human beings, not gods. And on planet earth.
Another lie. Look at your post again (including the part of mine that you quoted):
"If people are putting profits ahead of human lives and the greater good then they should be punished."
What kind of marxist nonsense is that? Profit -is- for human lives and the greater good.
If you think that I made it necessary to spell out basic axioms that others would take for granted, why were you unable to understand my quote which was referring to doing illegal acts that were against the public interest AND would result in punishment. One doesn't call for people to be punished for making profits, but one does call for people to be punished for profiting from illegal activities. It is you who have (deliberately?) misinterpreted what has been said just as you did when you claimed that Bill Nye et al were talking about locking up deniers in general when they were specifically talking about one particular group of people. It is a recurring pattern with you.
Science and scientists may be attacked and misinformation spread about them. There are, thankfully, few limits on free speech. And unless you can formulate some specific theory of crimespeak that is consistent with current law (slander, etc.), stop talking about it. Referring to your quaint notion of "public good" doesn't cut it in court - or here.
It looks like you didn't read the link that I provided earlier, because it talks about (and I even mentioned this) that they have done similar things in the past with the tobacco industry:
In 1998, New York State's Republican Attorney General Dennis Vacco successfully invoked the "corporate death penalty" to revoke the charters of two non-profit tax-exempt tobacco industry front groups, The Tobacco Institute and The Council for Tobacco Research (CTR). The two groups Vacco annulled were creatures of a decade long campaign funded principally by tobacco giant, Brown & Williamson to avoid costly health regulations that would diminish the profit margins of an industry that was killing one out of five of its customers. "Doubt is our Product," explained B&W's notorious 1969 memo outlining the reptilian communications strategy that hatched its front groups.
There is has also been an example (to which I don't have a link at the moment) where shareholders sued their board for not disclosing the scientific risks that the board knew and which they had deliberately hidden from the public. There are many ways that this behavior can be addressed.
If your only response to deniers is to use police instead of evidence you are no longer doing science.
A nice canned response, but it is complete nonsense. You are trying to perpetuate the myth that scientists are trying to silence deniers, when this is about lawmakers going after those spending millions of dollars orchestrating cynical campaigns of misinformation for their own profit. And the people who are talking about this are not "doing science" as you claim. The scientists are using evidence to back their claims, but they are being met with campaigns of FUD and unfounded accusations of corruption. It is hard to match simple, one sentence slogans against climate change with pages of data that nobody can understand.
After all, climate change scientists are deliberately publishing misinformation for financial gain.
Oh look, it is one of those unfounded accusations of corruption. Where is your evidence of this claim? Is there anything like Wei-Hock Soon's price list of "deliverables" including anti-climate change testimony to congress and papers published?
Let's face it, with so many climate researchers out there who would have to be corrupt for there to be such a massive conspiracy to manipulate the entire field of climate science, surely there would be a huge number of leaked documents demonstrating this cash-for-comment. But it turns out that there isn't. Even the huge CRU leaks failed to provide any evidence of nefarious transactions.
I'm sure that you are ready to fire back with some line about scientists getting government grants for which they must toe the line. But most pure science has some government funding involved. Are all those scientists corrupt, or just the ones producing research that you don't like - i.e. in the field of climate science?