Biomass and wood are short-term renewables and coal is renewable too on a geologic time scale.
Biomass and wood from sustainable sources are indeed renewable. Coal isn't, because we are using it far faster than geological timescales.
For sure, renewable and clean aren't synonyms. renewables tend to be far cleaner than fossil fuels. But not all renewables are clean. Anything that involves burning pollutes.
You could say that of any category of death. It doesn't matter if people die of hearth disease if it only shortens their lifespan by 1 second. It doesn't matter if people are killed in road traffic accidents if they would otherwise have died a second later by something else.
But of course you would only say something like that if you were trying to diminish the importance of a category deaths for some reason. Like politics for example.
Clearly this has offended your subconscious prejudices rather than your rational mind, as you don't offer a scrap of reasoning or evidence for why it might be wrong.
Pretty poor attempt at sarcasm, given it only reveals your ignorance to the number of radiation and cancer deaths from Chernobyl. Nuclear power is indeed one of the fatally polluting energy generation methods.
While Spencer is often a critic of climate science, that article was was a defense of the imagined "physics" behind greenhouse warming, used by the climate scientists to build their models.
Correct. That was implicit in my post.
But note that they are both DEFENDING AGW by making that claim. Regardless of whether you think they are "deniers", they are on the side of Greenhouse Warming on this particular point.
Exactly.
What is really amusing is that you don't even realize that you are arguing against yourself.
No, you just appear to have misunderstood my post. You claim there is dispute about the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. I say there isn't. Further I say that the denial is all political. In order to suggest that there a dispute, you link to Chemical Process Engineer and Republican Party donor Pierre R Latour. And the amusing thing in you link is that it provides the information that even the two prominent AGW sceptics say he's wrong.
Like I say, the existence of a crank, whether it be Latour or you, does NOT mean there's a controversy. Any more than a couple of cranks disputing the moon landings means there's a controversy about that.
When even Fred Singer and Roy Spencer admit there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect, along with all other scientists in relevant fields, then there is no scientific dispute.
There is only political dispute. Whether it be Republican donors like Latour, or libertarians like you. And scientific fact is immune to political opinion.
First, about the physics. (If you are unfamiliar with how this relates to AGW, I suggest you look up some of the discussions of the physics of CO2-based AGW according to climate scientists, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.) No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.
LOL! That's quite amusing. Roy Spencer and Fred Singer are about the closest thing to climate scientists that the denial camp have. And here you are posting a rebuttal of their views on The Greenhouse Effect by yet another denier.
To join in with the amusement, I'll simply quote Fred Singer back at you: âoeNow let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamicsâ"i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of down welling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.â
Yes, that's how much of a crank you have become. You're quoting cranks that even your own "skeptic" scientists think are "deniers". When I said there was no dispute, I obviously wasn't talking about the inability of the denialism crowd to even get their own story straight. Fight amongst yourselves boys and girls.
Moving on... The 117 climate models claim I already debunked in this thread.
"That's a 0.3% consensus, not 97%"
I debunked already in a previous argument with you under another story.
Well, hell. I could do this all day... But all of your links come from the same old political denialism sites.... I have 120 bookmarks of these from just the last couple of years...
Followed by links either to What's Up With That, or to links that you have got from WUWT. As I said earlier in the thread: "But all of your links come from the same old political denialism sites."
I repeat my comments. You are a denier that knows nothing of the science, You just repeat what you find on denialism blogs, because it suits your politics.
No you presented data with the suggestion that the son of a successful lawyer and the director of a bank and United Way was a "self made man". A man who's parents put him through an exclusive private school and then Harvard. Bill Gates.
This is not what is generally meant by "self-made". Self-made means making it without parental financial help. Bill Gates certainly does not qualify, therefore your argument fails.
So basically you can fap to porn all day and the knowledge and influence will just magically appear in some cases?
Don't underestimate the number of people in the Paris Hilton category. Incredibly wealthy without lifting a finger to make it.
Or more realistically, when opportunity doesn't knock, you have to build doors?
Of course even of those coming from a background of wealth many work hard. But the point is they are not working harder than many more people who don't get wealthy. It's the silver spoon they were born with that means they get to do work that earns them a lot of money rather than a little.
1) The paper has no definitions for wealth of parents. They code into "no wealth", "some wealthy" and "wealthy" arbitrarily based on what it says in "Who's Who" and web searches.
2) You quote their result for "wealthy", ignoring the "some wealth" category. Thus your 70% doesn't include Bill Gates for example, yet "His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way." Most people would count that as wealthy.
Had you instead counted the "some wealth" category as wealthy as most people would, the interpretation of the report is that only 20% are self-made. Which is rather more credible.
3) You assume that the richest 400 is representative of the wealthy in general. Which is unlikely. The ones with inherited wealth may not have the get up and go, or smarts to get into the top 400, but they are still wealthy.
There is an implication on the internet that everything is authorized until it states otherwise. Nobody ever gave me permission to access Slashdot or Google or Facebook.
No more so than physical premises. You have the implication you have access to a store with the lights on and an unlocked door. You don't have the implication you are allowed behind the counter, or in the stock room, even though there are no locked doors in the way. And any obviously private information that you picked up whilst behind the counter or in the stock room, would obviously not have been authorised.
Considerations of reasonableness are every bit a part of the exercise of law. And it is only reasonable to say that weev knew full well he was not authorised to access the private information he got access to. Even if there were no locks. Just as in the physical world.
The problem is, you don't know what someone else knows.
Actually, often you do. They may have said, written or done something that demonstrates what they know.
But not always. And in that case it's a question of reasonableness. What can a person be reasonably expected to know. In England we call this hypothetical reasonable person "The man on the Clapham omnibus."
I for one was granted authorisation until further notice at the point at which I applied for and was granted a Slashdot account. As were you.
However it doesn't even go as far as that.
It's reasonable to assume that you have authorisation to any homepage any page you get when you access an unadorned domain. And any page that can be accessed by a series of links from there.
It's unreasonable to assume that you are authorised to pages that you can only access by spoofing a Agent-ID, and making educated guesses at ID numbers embedded within a script generated URL.
(And there's lots of grey in between those. But we don't have to consider them, because the latter is what Weev did.)
If he had walked into the office building and asked the receptionist at the front "hey what is the email address for customer #1234" and it was given to him, would that be identity theft?
The request would most probably fail, because #1234 would be an invalid customer number. Most of the guessed at ICC-ID numbers would not correspond to an AT&T iPad.
Your analogy is flawed because not only would a human receptionist be extremely unlikely to give out the information without credentials, after a number of incorrect guesses at ICC-ID numbers, the receptionist would certainly refuse to give out any correctly guessed numbers.
The fact is humans and computer software is not the same, and such a naive analogy does not trump a properly thought out consideration in a court of law. Which we already have.
And we have a word for people who go round commercial districts turning handles in the hope that they are unlocked, walking in on those that are, and taking things without permission.
They are called criminals.
(Note Weev didn't just "look at it". When he republished the data, that was a clear act of having actually taken it and reused it for his own malicious purpose. And if the maliciousness of the republishing were in any doubt, the history of Goatse and GNAA makes it clear that weev's motivations are certainly not good citizenship.)
But since you want to be an insulting asshole again anyway by suggestion my position on science issues is based on politics, I will simply say that I review the SCIENCE in order to form my opinion, and my politics has exactly zero to do with it. To the best of my ability (which is considerable)
And you claim in a later post that I'm the one who does the personal attacks, and I'm the one who has the ego. That's pretty amusing hypocrisy.
For sure you do link to things sometimes. You didn't in this case until asked as the paper does state quite clearly that AGW is happening. But all of your links come from the same old political denialism sites.
You keep saying this, even though I repeatedly linked you and others in the past to PHYSICISTS who say otherwise.
I never know if you are lying or just confused. But what you say is not correct. Neither that there is any dispute, nor that you've ever pointed me to any page that says otherwise.
Kindly cease your personal attacks. I don't do that to you.... Oops. Right. I forgot: your pretty obviously enormous ego.
Confused or lying? Lying or confused? All in a single post.
And what the fuck, if anything, does climate do to affect a tsunami?
Without commenting on any particular tsunami, the common misconception that you have that tsunamis are always caused by geology and climate change can't effect geology is wrong on both counts.
Tsunami's can be caused by landslides and glacier calvings, both of which can be caused by weather events. Even when they are caused by earthquakes, one cause of earthquakes is glacier reduction. Lose the mass of a lot of ice on a land body, and the earth starts moving.
A recent study was done on 117 of the most common climate models cited by the pushers of CO2-based warming,
Which is a misrepresentation. It's 117 runs of 37 models of particular working group. It has nothing to do with collecting commonly cited models. The first paragraph of the paper, which you don't like to, accepts that there has indeed been warming, contrary to your claims elsewhere.
This is scientists doing what scientists do, improving the science. Improving models for the future. It's certainly not something that supports any of your denier positions.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely, which is why medical researchers tend to speak of person-years.
Sometimes. More often about number of deaths from a particular cause though.
Who is playing politics you say?
I think you are. To the extent of misrepresenting medical research.
Biomass and wood are short-term renewables and coal is renewable too on a geologic time scale.
Biomass and wood from sustainable sources are indeed renewable. Coal isn't, because we are using it far faster than geological timescales.
For sure, renewable and clean aren't synonyms. renewables tend to be far cleaner than fossil fuels. But not all renewables are clean. Anything that involves burning pollutes.
And no true scotsman would be killed by pollution anyway.
You could say that of any category of death. It doesn't matter if people die of hearth disease if it only shortens their lifespan by 1 second. It doesn't matter if people are killed in road traffic accidents if they would otherwise have died a second later by something else.
But of course you would only say something like that if you were trying to diminish the importance of a category deaths for some reason. Like politics for example.
Clearly this has offended your subconscious prejudices rather than your rational mind, as you don't offer a scrap of reasoning or evidence for why it might be wrong.
You make the mistake of confusing energy and fuel. As a human race we can stop using fuel, and still have all the energy we require.
Pretty poor attempt at sarcasm, given it only reveals your ignorance to the number of radiation and cancer deaths from Chernobyl. Nuclear power is indeed one of the fatally polluting energy generation methods.
That's a chart of a Ponzi scheme.
While Spencer is often a critic of climate science, that article was was a defense of the imagined "physics" behind greenhouse warming, used by the climate scientists to build their models.
Correct. That was implicit in my post.
But note that they are both DEFENDING AGW by making that claim. Regardless of whether you think they are "deniers", they are on the side of Greenhouse Warming on this particular point.
Exactly.
What is really amusing is that you don't even realize that you are arguing against yourself.
No, you just appear to have misunderstood my post. You claim there is dispute about the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. I say there isn't. Further I say that the denial is all political. In order to suggest that there a dispute, you link to Chemical Process Engineer and Republican Party donor Pierre R Latour. And the amusing thing in you link is that it provides the information that even the two prominent AGW sceptics say he's wrong.
Like I say, the existence of a crank, whether it be Latour or you, does NOT mean there's a controversy. Any more than a couple of cranks disputing the moon landings means there's a controversy about that.
When even Fred Singer and Roy Spencer admit there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect, along with all other scientists in relevant fields, then there is no scientific dispute.
There is only political dispute. Whether it be Republican donors like Latour, or libertarians like you. And scientific fact is immune to political opinion.
First, about the physics. (If you are unfamiliar with how this relates to AGW, I suggest you look up some of the discussions of the physics of CO2-based AGW according to climate scientists, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.)
No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.
LOL! That's quite amusing. Roy Spencer and Fred Singer are about the closest thing to climate scientists that the denial camp have. And here you are posting a rebuttal of their views on The Greenhouse Effect by yet another denier.
To join in with the amusement, I'll simply quote Fred Singer back at you: âoeNow let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamicsâ"i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of down welling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.â
Yes, that's how much of a crank you have become. You're quoting cranks that even your own "skeptic" scientists think are "deniers". When I said there was no dispute, I obviously wasn't talking about the inability of the denialism crowd to even get their own story straight. Fight amongst yourselves boys and girls.
Moving on... The 117 climate models claim I already debunked in this thread.
"That's a 0.3% consensus, not 97%"
I debunked already in a previous argument with you under another story.
Well, hell. I could do this all day... ... I have 120 bookmarks of these from just the last couple of years...
But all of your links come from the same old political denialism sites.
Followed by links either to What's Up With That, or to links that you have got from WUWT. As I said earlier in the thread: "But all of your links come from the same old political denialism sites."
I repeat my comments. You are a denier that knows nothing of the science, You just repeat what you find on denialism blogs, because it suits your politics.
No you presented data with the suggestion that the son of a successful lawyer and the director of a bank and United Way was a "self made man". A man who's parents put him through an exclusive private school and then Harvard. Bill Gates.
This is not what is generally meant by "self-made". Self-made means making it without parental financial help. Bill Gates certainly does not qualify, therefore your argument fails.
So basically you can fap to porn all day and the knowledge and influence will just magically appear in some cases?
Don't underestimate the number of people in the Paris Hilton category. Incredibly wealthy without lifting a finger to make it.
Or more realistically, when opportunity doesn't knock, you have to build doors?
Of course even of those coming from a background of wealth many work hard. But the point is they are not working harder than many more people who don't get wealthy. It's the silver spoon they were born with that means they get to do work that earns them a lot of money rather than a little.
3 problems.
1) The paper has no definitions for wealth of parents. They code into "no wealth", "some wealthy" and "wealthy" arbitrarily based on what it says in "Who's Who" and web searches.
2) You quote their result for "wealthy", ignoring the "some wealth" category. Thus your 70% doesn't include Bill Gates for example, yet "His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way." Most people would count that as wealthy.
Had you instead counted the "some wealth" category as wealthy as most people would, the interpretation of the report is that only 20% are self-made. Which is rather more credible.
3) You assume that the richest 400 is representative of the wealthy in general. Which is unlikely. The ones with inherited wealth may not have the get up and go, or smarts to get into the top 400, but they are still wealthy.
Interesting how you play down Android vulnerabilities whilst playing up iOS ones.
There is an implication on the internet that everything is authorized until it states otherwise. Nobody ever gave me permission to access Slashdot or Google or Facebook.
No more so than physical premises. You have the implication you have access to a store with the lights on and an unlocked door. You don't have the implication you are allowed behind the counter, or in the stock room, even though there are no locked doors in the way. And any obviously private information that you picked up whilst behind the counter or in the stock room, would obviously not have been authorised.
Considerations of reasonableness are every bit a part of the exercise of law. And it is only reasonable to say that weev knew full well he was not authorised to access the private information he got access to. Even if there were no locks. Just as in the physical world.
The problem is, you don't know what someone else knows.
Actually, often you do. They may have said, written or done something that demonstrates what they know.
But not always. And in that case it's a question of reasonableness. What can a person be reasonably expected to know. In England we call this hypothetical reasonable person "The man on the Clapham omnibus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
I for one was granted authorisation until further notice at the point at which I applied for and was granted a Slashdot account. As were you.
However it doesn't even go as far as that.
It's reasonable to assume that you have authorisation to any homepage any page you get when you access an unadorned domain. And any page that can be accessed by a series of links from there.
It's unreasonable to assume that you are authorised to pages that you can only access by spoofing a Agent-ID, and making educated guesses at ID numbers embedded within a script generated URL.
(And there's lots of grey in between those. But we don't have to consider them, because the latter is what Weev did.)
If he had walked into the office building and asked the receptionist at the front "hey what is the email address for customer #1234" and it was given to him, would that be identity theft?
The request would most probably fail, because #1234 would be an invalid customer number. Most of the guessed at ICC-ID numbers would not correspond to an AT&T iPad.
Your analogy is flawed because not only would a human receptionist be extremely unlikely to give out the information without credentials, after a number of incorrect guesses at ICC-ID numbers, the receptionist would certainly refuse to give out any correctly guessed numbers.
The fact is humans and computer software is not the same, and such a naive analogy does not trump a properly thought out consideration in a court of law. Which we already have.
A court doesn't have to understand how a lock works to convict someone who took something that didn't belong to him.
He DID publish them.
http://www.dailytech.com/ATT+A...
And we have a word for people who go round commercial districts turning handles in the hope that they are unlocked, walking in on those that are, and taking things without permission.
They are called criminals.
(Note Weev didn't just "look at it". When he republished the data, that was a clear act of having actually taken it and reused it for his own malicious purpose. And if the maliciousness of the republishing were in any doubt, the history of Goatse and GNAA makes it clear that weev's motivations are certainly not good citizenship.)
But since you want to be an insulting asshole again anyway by suggestion my position on science issues is based on politics, I will simply say that I review the SCIENCE in order to form my opinion, and my politics has exactly zero to do with it. To the best of my ability (which is considerable)
And you claim in a later post that I'm the one who does the personal attacks, and I'm the one who has the ego. That's pretty amusing hypocrisy.
For sure you do link to things sometimes. You didn't in this case until asked as the paper does state quite clearly that AGW is happening. But all of your links come from the same old political denialism sites.
You keep saying this, even though I repeatedly linked you and others in the past to PHYSICISTS who say otherwise.
I never know if you are lying or just confused. But what you say is not correct. Neither that there is any dispute, nor that you've ever pointed me to any page that says otherwise.
Kindly cease your personal attacks. I don't do that to you. ... Oops. Right. I forgot: your pretty obviously enormous ego.
Confused or lying? Lying or confused? All in a single post.
And what the fuck, if anything, does climate do to affect a tsunami?
Without commenting on any particular tsunami, the common misconception that you have that tsunamis are always caused by geology and climate change can't effect geology is wrong on both counts.
Tsunami's can be caused by landslides and glacier calvings, both of which can be caused by weather events. Even when they are caused by earthquakes, one cause of earthquakes is glacier reduction. Lose the mass of a lot of ice on a land body, and the earth starts moving.
A recent study was done on 117 of the most common climate models cited by the pushers of CO2-based warming,
Which is a misrepresentation. It's 117 runs of 37 models of particular working group. It has nothing to do with collecting commonly cited models. The first paragraph of the paper, which you don't like to, accepts that there has indeed been warming, contrary to your claims elsewhere.
This is scientists doing what scientists do, improving the science. Improving models for the future. It's certainly not something that supports any of your denier positions.
For the benefit of others, here's the link to the paper you mention:
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/C...