Quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement from any scientist on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and then we can talk about who knows better than who.
So you don't even know what it is you're being skeptical about.
As it stands, you've simply made an appeal to unnamed authorities.
No, I asked you a question. You appear to be pretending to know about science by spouting elementary scientific terms. I was asking what your credentials are.
I could easily come up with dozens of scientific theories and concepts that are certainly more important to be taught than evolution.
You can't come up with enough to mean that there isn't enough space in a decade of school to fit evolution in.
And I certainly don't share your belief that evolution is unimportant. It's not the only, not the most important theory in science. But it is definately one of the biggies. Given that biology is one of the core scientific subjects, and understanding evolution is pretty important within that.
If freedom means anything at all, it means the ability to teach your children that the Government is wrong - even when it goes against science.
Nonsense. The child has rights of his/her own and is not the parents property. If for example someone was teaching neo-nazism to their children, then a civilised society should intervene to stop that.
1) There's no such thing as global warming. 2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant. 3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it. 4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative. 5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it. 6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it. 7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier? 8) ???? 9) Profit.
But what I *do* have a problem with is that we can't even accurately predict the weather on the day of the prediction (just yesterday morning I was fooled into thinking it would be in the 80's - we didn't pass the 60's) much less act like we know what long term effects these "remedies" will create.
If you toss a coin, I can't predict if it will be heads or not. If you toss a coin 1000 times, I can make a very good prediction of how many of those tosses will be heads.
This is the essential difference between weather prediction and climate prediction. Weather is what happens at a particular place and time. Climate is an average over significant time and space.
Oh, and even weather prediction these days is actually far better than you imagine it to be. Despite your anecdote about yesterday.
These myths have been debunked hundreds of times already.
Greenland was a mix of snow covered land and snow free land when the Vikings were there. And it still is. So that doesn't imply it's getting colder, nor that ice sheets are expanding.
There are still commercial vinyards and wine makers in England now. So the fact that there also were 1000 years ago (and indeed 2000 years ago) also does not mean it's getting colder.
If you look at the actual data you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002.
No, he'll see a denialist bufoon trying to split a 20 year graph of noisy data into two distinct sections. He won't see the scientist that actually created that data doing something so dumb.
You tried exactly the same back in 2009, to claim that global warming had stopped in 1998. However, 3 years more data of climing temperatures showed that you were exactly the idiot people said you were. Trying to make patterns out of short term noise.
There aren't two equal sides here with 2 legitimate points of view. There is the scientific fact of global warming, and there are ignorant people denying it.
Dumb because they didn't read the small print about the £100 excess and the fact about "a phone of equivalent value", and the value has dropped below £100 since they bought it.
Dumb for buying worthless insurance in the first place.
Microsoft has released WP7, which is incompatible with all devices before it. ANd shortly to release WP 8 which is also incompatible with all devices before it. And you, having bought one of those WP7 phones are defending them and pretending that everything is OK with WP software updates.
The fact that you are impressed by a point upgrade shows how low your bar is. That you've been conditioned to never expect a full version upgrade from Microsoft's mobile dept.
Typically? Windows Phone has had only 2 major versions.
Windows CE Pocket PC 2000 Pocket PC 2002 Windows Mobile 2003 Windows Mobile 2003 SE Windows Mobile 5.x Windows Mobile 6.x Windows Phone 7.x Windows Phone 8.x
Microsoft change their mind on naming from time to time. But the version number sequence since 5.x is clear.
Do you imagine that Microsoft's mobile customers don't feel shat upon by the lack of compatibility between versions just because Microsoft change the name every once in a while?
You're saying that WP7 phones are capable of running WP7.x. That is no surprise.
The point is you can't run 7.x on Windows Mobile 6.x phones. (The incompatibility presumably the cause of the name change, though the version number sequence is intact).
And you won't be able to run WP8 software on WP7 phones.
Fine, so from now on when we talk about Android devices, lets only talk about those ones that get regular and prompt updates to the latest version of the OS.
Having done that, Android is no longer the market share leader.
You can also hack the hardware of Android (manufacturers are the ones who don't want you to do this not the OS creators) and put something else up. I remember on the Atrix I got Gingerbread a long time before Motorola officially released it. iOS... well who cares
Who cares? Well for starters, people who want to get new releases of the OS without having to "hack".
make you buy newer iphones as a marketing strategy.
As opposed to Android manufacturers making you buy a new phone to get the next version of Android. iOS carrot vs Android stick.
Are you kidding, OEM's would *love* this, if they manage to make upgrading the operating system as difficult as phone manufacturers (other than Apple) have.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for demonstrating that there is no such realm.
There are things that science can't explain yet. There is nothing that science CAN'T address.
Quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement from any scientist on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and then we can talk about who knows better than who.
So you don't even know what it is you're being skeptical about.
As it stands, you've simply made an appeal to unnamed authorities.
No, I asked you a question. You appear to be pretending to know about science by spouting elementary scientific terms. I was asking what your credentials are.
I could easily come up with dozens of scientific theories and concepts that are certainly more important to be taught than evolution.
You can't come up with enough to mean that there isn't enough space in a decade of school to fit evolution in.
And I certainly don't share your belief that evolution is unimportant. It's not the only, not the most important theory in science. But it is definately one of the biggies. Given that biology is one of the core scientific subjects, and understanding evolution is pretty important within that.
If freedom means anything at all, it means the ability to teach your children that the Government is wrong - even when it goes against science.
Nonsense. The child has rights of his/her own and is not the parents property. If for example someone was teaching neo-nazism to their children, then a civilised society should intervene to stop that.
2. it may be that its in the realm of things that science can't address.
Give me 3 examples of things in that realm.
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
But what I *do* have a problem with is that we can't even accurately predict the weather on the day of the prediction (just yesterday morning I was fooled into thinking it would be in the 80's - we didn't pass the 60's) much less act like we know what long term effects these "remedies" will create.
If you toss a coin, I can't predict if it will be heads or not. If you toss a coin 1000 times, I can make a very good prediction of how many of those tosses will be heads.
This is the essential difference between weather prediction and climate prediction. Weather is what happens at a particular place and time. Climate is an average over significant time and space.
Oh, and even weather prediction these days is actually far better than you imagine it to be. Despite your anecdote about yesterday.
These myths have been debunked hundreds of times already.
Greenland was a mix of snow covered land and snow free land when the Vikings were there. And it still is. So that doesn't imply it's getting colder, nor that ice sheets are expanding.
There are still commercial vinyards and wine makers in England now. So the fact that there also were 1000 years ago (and indeed 2000 years ago) also does not mean it's getting colder.
Sahara desert = not much food.
Seems the world is more complicated than you imagine.
What makes you imagine you know better than the scientists?
If you look at the actual data you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002.
No, he'll see a denialist bufoon trying to split a 20 year graph of noisy data into two distinct sections. He won't see the scientist that actually created that data doing something so dumb.
You tried exactly the same back in 2009, to claim that global warming had stopped in 1998. However, 3 years more data of climing temperatures showed that you were exactly the idiot people said you were. Trying to make patterns out of short term noise.
There aren't two equal sides here with 2 legitimate points of view. There is the scientific fact of global warming, and there are ignorant people denying it.
Dumb because they didn't read the small print about the £100 excess and the fact about "a phone of equivalent value", and the value has dropped below £100 since they bought it.
Dumb for buying worthless insurance in the first place.
Ha ha. So predictable and desperate.
3 major versions vs 1 major version. End of line dictated by Moore's law, not by corporate ineptitude.
Are you still trying to deny you're defending Microsoft?
Was upgraded right through iOS 1.x, iOS 2.x and iOS3.x.
The fact that Android is also software upgrade challenged does not excuse Microsoft.
Apple on the other hand does it right. The current iOS 6 is usable on the iPhone 3GS, which originally came with iOS 3.
Microsoft has released WP7, which is incompatible with all devices before it. ANd shortly to release WP 8 which is also incompatible with all devices before it. And you, having bought one of those WP7 phones are defending them and pretending that everything is OK with WP software updates.
That could be the dictionary definition of Mug!
Yes, I have won the argument. In reality.
Windows Mobile != Windows Phone - they are two different products.
Mug.
The fact that you are impressed by a point upgrade shows how low your bar is. That you've been conditioned to never expect a full version upgrade from Microsoft's mobile dept.
Typically? Windows Phone has had only 2 major versions.
Windows CE
Pocket PC 2000
Pocket PC 2002
Windows Mobile 2003
Windows Mobile 2003 SE
Windows Mobile 5.x
Windows Mobile 6.x
Windows Phone 7.x
Windows Phone 8.x
Microsoft change their mind on naming from time to time. But the version number sequence since 5.x is clear.
Do you imagine that Microsoft's mobile customers don't feel shat upon by the lack of compatibility between versions just because Microsoft change the name every once in a while?
You're saying that WP7 phones are capable of running WP7.x. That is no surprise.
The point is you can't run 7.x on Windows Mobile 6.x phones. (The incompatibility presumably the cause of the name change, though the version number sequence is intact).
And you won't be able to run WP8 software on WP7 phones.
Fine, so from now on when we talk about Android devices, lets only talk about those ones that get regular and prompt updates to the latest version of the OS.
Having done that, Android is no longer the market share leader.
You can also hack the hardware of Android (manufacturers are the ones who don't want you to do this not the OS creators) and put something else up. I remember on the Atrix I got Gingerbread a long time before Motorola officially released it. iOS... well who cares
Who cares? Well for starters, people who want to get new releases of the OS without having to "hack".
make you buy newer iphones as a marketing strategy.
As opposed to Android manufacturers making you buy a new phone to get the next version of Android. iOS carrot vs Android stick.
Typically new releases of Windows Phone don't work on old phones.
Are you kidding, OEM's would *love* this, if they manage to make upgrading the operating system as difficult as phone manufacturers (other than Apple) have.
Fixed that for you.