"Much of the data is wrong or irrelevant." So... the data against global warming is wrong or irrelevant, but the data supporting it is perfectly accurate and totally relevant?
See how you had to add in some unattainable extreme adjectives that weren't in the quote you were trying to tit for tat.
Even nuclear weapons, for all their power, aren't really that big a deal to the planet. To us, maybe, but we could set them all off and in 10,000 years the planet wouldn't notice or care. Of course we would because we tend to think in human time scales, not planet time scales.
For us and many other species that would be wiped out. Now most people would find the extinction of the human race to be a thing to be avoided, even if they lack empathy for any other species.
but our ability to mess up a big area is small.
Remember the hole in the ozone layer? That was massive, and human caused. And by taking action to reduce the CFC emissions that were causing it, it's growth was stopped, and it's shrinking. (It grows and shrinks on an annual basis, but the trend is down.) That was caused by relatively few sources. CFC Aerosols, ACs, Fridges, some industrial processes.
You couldn't see that problem with the naked eye either. But just like with global warming, the problems to humanity and other species were real (melanoma). And could be measured with instrumentation. The parallels are clear.
This isn't about winning the argument, this is about having clear and obvious evidence. I can go to telescopes around the world and look at the sky and see the other stars and galaxies. I can hire a submarine and go into the ocean if I want. I can drop a brick on my foot to experience gravity.
And the warming is clear. Even the few scientists that oppose the consensus don't deny the warming is happening. That's entirely the domain of denier blogs.
I was watching an old news video this morning about Michelle Obama creating a vegetable garden at the White House. And there was an interview with the director of the "American Council on Science and Technology" condemning it as a bad example. That most people couldn't afford to grow their own organic vegetables, or afford them in the shops, so they would end up eating less vegetables. Really. A completely nonsense opposition argument to creating a vegetable plot.
Why?
Because the organisation is really a paid lobbyist for corporations such as Monsanto and the National Agricultural Chemicals Association. The last thing they want is people eating organic vegetables. They would lose a little bit of revenue.
This is exactly the same mechanism behind AGW denial. It's funded by those corporations and individuals that believe they will lose financially from any action to combat global warming. Their arguments are nonsense, and their cherry picking and other abuses of data are enormous. Yet still for those people who desperately want to believe there is no AGW, it provides them with straws to grasp.
From a story on today's soylentNews. Posted here because it hits on a couple of things I already mentioned in this thread.
"But Kahan and his team had an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps people aren't held back by a lack of knowledge. After all, they don't typically doubt the findings of oceanographers or the existence of other galaxies. Perhaps there are some kinds of debates where people don't want to find the right answer so much as they want to win the argument. Perhaps humans reason for purposes other than finding the truth - purposes like increasing their standing in their community, or ensuring they don't piss off the leaders of their tribe. If this hypothesis proved true, then a smarter, better-educated citizenry wouldn't put an end to these disagreements. It would just mean the participants are better equipped to argue for their own side."
"This will make sense to anyone who's ever read the work of a serious climate change denialist. It's filled with facts and figures, graphs and charts, studies and citations. Much of the data is wrong or irrelevant. But it feels convincing. It's a terrific performance of scientific inquiry. And climate-change skeptics who immerse themselves in it end up far more confident that global warming is a hoax than people who haven't spent much time studying the issue. More information, in this context, doesn't help skeptics discover the best evidence. Instead, it sends them searching for evidence that seems to prove them right. And in the age of the internet, such evidence is never very far away."
"This will make sense to anyone whoâ(TM)s ever read the work of a serious climate change denialist. Itâ(TM)s filled with facts and figures, graphs and charts, studies and citations. Much of the data is wrong or irrelevant. But it feels convincing. Itâ(TM)s a terrific performance of scientific inquiry. And climate-change skeptics who immerse themselves in it end up far more confident that global warming is a hoax than people who havenâ(TM)t spent much time studying the issue. More information, in this context, doesnâ(TM)t help skeptics discover the best evidence. Instead, it sends them searching for evidence that seems to prove them right. And in the age of the internet, such evidence is never very far away."
When the GnuTLS bug came up the other week, lots of people here said it wasn't a big problem because lots of Linux software uses OpenSSL. Well that excuse just died a death with this news. BOTH common Linux SSL libraries have catastrophic security holes.
No, but they do break down. And cost rises in power/maintainence/parts may also rise at bad times...
But that's by the by, these things come into the same category as cost per hour arguments. Which as pointed out are often not the significant reasons for automation.
I've already responded several times to other people who already made the same assertion in reply to my post. You are wrong for the same reasons previously posted. And also redundant.
The falsification criteria simply demands that a 15+ year period of no statistically significant warming exists *anywhere* in the record during a period of ever increasing CO2.
No such assurance has been made. Except by you.
It's like if I bet that you're an alcoholic if you drink more than 5 glasses of wine in an hour, but you say I'm cherry picking the time you're in the bar, and claim you spend most of your days sleeping and not drinking:)
No, it's like if you caught the alcoholic drinking a sugary drink, and eating bread containing yeast, and said that sugar plus yeast equals alcohol.
Had that ever happened with Apple that would be big news indeed. And yet you have no evidence for it. You're just hanging on to the dumb thing you said in the first place.
I enjoy a good rant, and yours was a good one. But it is wrong. Athiesm means "without a belief in god or gods. No more no less. It's not a faith.
And whilst you think they all go around "loudly proclaiming", of course you don't know about the other atheists who just quietly go about their life not proclaiming or ranting about any of the things they don't happen to have a belief in.
Look again. *Every* data set there contains at least one 15 year instance that has no statistically significant warming.
Ha ha! You have all the methods for cherry picking down pat. So now you're demanding that we use a different period for different data sets. It gets worse!
It's OK, I have enough now that we both know you know AGW is real. Your denial is a deliberate lie.
Since there is no way to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that a higher power exists atheism relies on the belief that one does not without having evidence.
That's not true. You need to read Bertrand Russell. A rational human being doesn't have to believe the possibility that everything imaginable might be true. That's the act of a very irrational person. Indeed there are no known examples of such a person.
You need to show evidence that an imagined thing DOES exist, not prove that it doesn't.
There's no reason for me to provide evidence that gods don't exist any more than I have to provide evidence that fairies and goblins, and teapots in orbit around mars don't exist.
One doesn't say that someone who has no belief in unicorns has a BELIEF that there are no djins. Simply that they lack the belief that there are. Indeed they may never have given the existence of djins a second of thought, so you can't claim it as an actual belief. That which has never been thought about cannot be a belief by definition.
And what applies to djins applies to gods just the same. There is no difference.
Atheism means "without theism", and "theism" means a belief in god or gods. Thus atheism is "without a belief in a god or gods". It's the lack of a belief, not a belief.
You have agnosticism have right though. It means "I don't know".
Typically, agnostic is for those people who actually think there might be a God, and think that not denying him might have some benefit when they die.
Then there are some who have family or society background where atheism is thought of as evil or unthinkable, so they take a compromise position for that reason.
Then there are some people who just don't want to think about it, and think agnostic is a good default position.
Generally then, they are partial believers as to the non-believers that atheists are.
No. Atheism literally means "without theism". With "theism" meaning the belief in god or gods. It is the lack of a belief. It's not a belief in itself. By definition.
It's no more a faith than being someone who doesn't believe in fairies or unicorns is.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you want case insensitivity in a language?
Recently both rear view cameras and sideview camera systems have been criticised as a bad idea by some here on Slashdot.
This Land Rover invisible hood system seems beyond criticism. But I'm sure slashdot naysayers will find an angle anyway. Go for it...
"Much of the data is wrong or irrelevant."
So... the data against global warming is wrong or irrelevant, but the data supporting it is perfectly accurate and totally relevant?
See how you had to add in some unattainable extreme adjectives that weren't in the quote you were trying to tit for tat.
Even nuclear weapons, for all their power, aren't really that big a deal to the planet. To us, maybe, but we could set them all off and in 10,000 years the planet wouldn't notice or care. Of course we would because we tend to think in human time scales, not planet time scales.
For us and many other species that would be wiped out. Now most people would find the extinction of the human race to be a thing to be avoided, even if they lack empathy for any other species.
but our ability to mess up a big area is small.
Remember the hole in the ozone layer? That was massive, and human caused. And by taking action to reduce the CFC emissions that were causing it, it's growth was stopped, and it's shrinking. (It grows and shrinks on an annual basis, but the trend is down.) That was caused by relatively few sources. CFC Aerosols, ACs, Fridges, some industrial processes.
You couldn't see that problem with the naked eye either. But just like with global warming, the problems to humanity and other species were real (melanoma). And could be measured with instrumentation. The parallels are clear.
This isn't about winning the argument, this is about having clear and obvious evidence. I can go to telescopes around the world and look at the sky and see the other stars and galaxies. I can hire a submarine and go into the ocean if I want. I can drop a brick on my foot to experience gravity.
And the warming is clear. Even the few scientists that oppose the consensus don't deny the warming is happening. That's entirely the domain of denier blogs.
I was watching an old news video this morning about Michelle Obama creating a vegetable garden at the White House. And there was an interview with the director of the "American Council on Science and Technology" condemning it as a bad example. That most people couldn't afford to grow their own organic vegetables, or afford them in the shops, so they would end up eating less vegetables. Really. A completely nonsense opposition argument to creating a vegetable plot.
Why?
Because the organisation is really a paid lobbyist for corporations such as Monsanto and the National Agricultural Chemicals Association. The last thing they want is people eating organic vegetables. They would lose a little bit of revenue.
This is exactly the same mechanism behind AGW denial. It's funded by those corporations and individuals that believe they will lose financially from any action to combat global warming. Their arguments are nonsense, and their cherry picking and other abuses of data are enormous. Yet still for those people who desperately want to believe there is no AGW, it provides them with straws to grasp.
How many more times? Is redundancy another failing of the religious? Is that why they have this compulsion to repeat the same activities every Sunday?
Your reply to my comment is the same as many others. It adds nothing. And all the replies I made to the others also applies to yours.
That would entirely depend what the writer wrote for him. Heston himself probably wouldn't know what your complaint is.
From a story on today's soylentNews. Posted here because it hits on a couple of things I already mentioned in this thread.
"But Kahan and his team had an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps people aren't held back by a lack of knowledge. After all, they don't typically doubt the findings of oceanographers or the existence of other galaxies. Perhaps there are some kinds of debates where people don't want to find the right answer so much as they want to win the argument. Perhaps humans reason for purposes other than finding the truth - purposes like increasing their standing in their community, or ensuring they don't piss off the leaders of their tribe. If this hypothesis proved true, then a smarter, better-educated citizenry wouldn't put an end to these disagreements. It would just mean the participants are better equipped to argue for their own side."
"This will make sense to anyone who's ever read the work of a serious climate change denialist. It's filled with facts and figures, graphs and charts, studies and citations. Much of the data is wrong or irrelevant. But it feels convincing. It's a terrific performance of scientific inquiry. And climate-change skeptics who immerse themselves in it end up far more confident that global warming is a hoax than people who haven't spent much time studying the issue. More information, in this context, doesn't help skeptics discover the best evidence. Instead, it sends them searching for evidence that seems to prove them right. And in the age of the internet, such evidence is never very far away."
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/55...
"This will make sense to anyone whoâ(TM)s ever read the work of a serious climate change denialist. Itâ(TM)s filled with facts and figures, graphs and charts, studies and citations. Much of the data is wrong or irrelevant. But it feels convincing. Itâ(TM)s a terrific performance of scientific inquiry. And climate-change skeptics who immerse themselves in it end up far more confident that global warming is a hoax than people who havenâ(TM)t spent much time studying the issue. More information, in this context, doesnâ(TM)t help skeptics discover the best evidence. Instead, it sends them searching for evidence that seems to prove them right. And in the age of the internet, such evidence is never very far away."
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/55...
GnuTLS is not the same as OpenSSL.
When the GnuTLS bug came up the other week, lots of people here said it wasn't a big problem because lots of Linux software uses OpenSSL. Well that excuse just died a death with this news. BOTH common Linux SSL libraries have catastrophic security holes.
That is bad. Odd really given that the European petrol version is 47mpg and the diesel version is 70mpg.
Do American's detune their cars or something?
No, but they do break down. And cost rises in power/maintainence/parts may also rise at bad times...
But that's by the by, these things come into the same category as cost per hour arguments. Which as pointed out are often not the significant reasons for automation.
Any belief is a faith... For some that's science, religion, or lack of religion. After all, Atheism is faith in ones self.
No. Atheism is not a belief let alone a faith. It's a lack of a belief. By definition.
And how you get from there to anti-political correctness and conservative/liberal politics I have no idea. It's irrelevant.
NOAA 2008
In your dreams.
I've already responded several times to other people who already made the same assertion in reply to my post. You are wrong for the same reasons previously posted. And also redundant.
Clearly you have nothing more to add. You said something dumb in your OP, and you have nothing to back it up with. Nothing more to be said.
And you think you know better than The Australian Securities and Investment Commission because...?
If you don't know how it will help, that's more likely to mean you don't understand than ASIC don't.
The falsification criteria simply demands that a 15+ year period of no statistically significant warming exists *anywhere* in the record during a period of ever increasing CO2.
No such assurance has been made. Except by you.
It's like if I bet that you're an alcoholic if you drink more than 5 glasses of wine in an hour, but you say I'm cherry picking the time you're in the bar, and claim you spend most of your days sleeping and not drinking :)
No, it's like if you caught the alcoholic drinking a sugary drink, and eating bread containing yeast, and said that sugar plus yeast equals alcohol.
Yes, it's that barking mad.
Had that ever happened with Apple that would be big news indeed. And yet you have no evidence for it. You're just hanging on to the dumb thing you said in the first place.
I enjoy a good rant, and yours was a good one. But it is wrong. Athiesm means "without a belief in god or gods. No more no less. It's not a faith.
And whilst you think they all go around "loudly proclaiming", of course you don't know about the other atheists who just quietly go about their life not proclaiming or ranting about any of the things they don't happen to have a belief in.
"Carbon neutral" is a mythical term.
Clearly it's an inconvenient truth for you.
Look again. *Every* data set there contains at least one 15 year instance that has no statistically significant warming.
Ha ha! You have all the methods for cherry picking down pat. So now you're demanding that we use a different period for different data sets. It gets worse!
It's OK, I have enough now that we both know you know AGW is real. Your denial is a deliberate lie.
What you say isn't a fact. It's an anecdote. Anecdotes rarely have verbatim quotes in them.
Again, my proof is the Apple organisational tree. CEO is superior to VP. Absolute fact.
Since there is no way to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that a higher power exists atheism relies on the belief that one does not without having evidence.
That's not true. You need to read Bertrand Russell. A rational human being doesn't have to believe the possibility that everything imaginable might be true. That's the act of a very irrational person. Indeed there are no known examples of such a person.
You need to show evidence that an imagined thing DOES exist, not prove that it doesn't.
There's no reason for me to provide evidence that gods don't exist any more than I have to provide evidence that fairies and goblins, and teapots in orbit around mars don't exist.
One doesn't say that someone who has no belief in unicorns has a BELIEF that there are no djins. Simply that they lack the belief that there are. Indeed they may never have given the existence of djins a second of thought, so you can't claim it as an actual belief. That which has never been thought about cannot be a belief by definition.
And what applies to djins applies to gods just the same. There is no difference.
Urban dictionary isn't a dictionary.
Atheism means "without theism", and "theism" means a belief in god or gods. Thus atheism is "without a belief in a god or gods". It's the lack of a belief, not a belief.
You have agnosticism have right though. It means "I don't know".
Typically, agnostic is for those people who actually think there might be a God, and think that not denying him might have some benefit when they die.
Then there are some who have family or society background where atheism is thought of as evil or unthinkable, so they take a compromise position for that reason.
Then there are some people who just don't want to think about it, and think agnostic is a good default position.
Generally then, they are partial believers as to the non-believers that atheists are.
No. Atheism literally means "without theism". With "theism" meaning the belief in god or gods. It is the lack of a belief. It's not a belief in itself. By definition.
It's no more a faith than being someone who doesn't believe in fairies or unicorns is.
Apples's marketing must be indeed be far better, since it gets them a better result than Samsung with one tenth the marketing budget.
http://static.knowyourmobile.c...