are you kidding me? You dismiss an article completely, simply because it's not peer-reviewed? What about the BEST paper by Muller, has it passed peer review?
wow, that's quite the character assassination! You really have your hate on for this guy, don't you? FYI, he is not funded by the Heartland Institute. He requested a donation from them for a single project that required some significant investment in servers, programming, and bandwidth. And in regards to your "peer reviewed" article, they were using a small subset of the total stations. In fact, they got their data from Watts directly. However, he notes that it was an incomplete survey they worked off of, only 43% of the stations that he had surveyed up to that point, and the data hadn't been quality controlled. He also found issues with the algorithms that are being used to "adjust" the data. Also of note is the work of climatologist James Goodridge, who found an increase in temperature of 0.9F when thermometers were upgraded from from mercury to MMTS. These are discrepancies that still haven't been accounted for. Of course, for you global warming is clearly a religion, and it's not about the science at all. You believe wholeheartedly, so if someone questions the accuracy, he's a "denier" and in the pay of "big oil". He can't possibly have any valid input, can he?
ya, that's why free Linux has replaced expensive Windows everywhere, and free Open Office has replaced Microsoft Office everywhere, and free Android smartphones with a 3 year contract have completely killed off the $99 and $199 3 Year contract iPhones. There are hundreds of examples that completely disprove your theory. Free programming languages, compilers, etc that haven't killed off the paid for development solutions, Adobe Acrobat vs a multitude of free PDF creation tools, free antivirus software vs paid for antivirus software, Flash vs free competitors, etc
I don't think linking to skepticalscience helps your case at all, the site is clearly being run by people who have already decided AGW is real and happening. They're not being objective about it, they label others as "deniers" on a regular basis. Take a look at the chart they're using vs a google search for the same chart. Why is their chart different than the rest? All the other charts show that real temperatures most closely match Hansen's scenario C, which involved CO2 emissions ceasing to increase past 1990. Guess what? CO2 emissions continued to increase past 1990, and yet the data best fits that scenario.
Secondly, don't complain that "speculation of one scientist somehow mutates into an absolute prediction". I didn't say that it was an absolute prediction, nor did I say that all climate scientists were in agreement with the statement. I presented you with multiple references to extreme predictions, as per the original comment. Why is it that you'll argue so vehemently with anyone who questions the AGW theories, but you're absolutely silent when these "extreme predictions" get posted? You're clearly not objective about the subject, you've already drawn your conclusions.
He's come out with some pretty apocalyptic predictions, such as his 1988 chart showing 3 different scenarios, all of which are looking to be way off the mark. And Al Gore had some pretty wild assertions about sea level rise in his movie too. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, also had some wild claims of Himalayan glaciers all being gone by 2035. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted an ice free arctic by 2015. And here's another prediction for some catastrophic sea level rise. There has definitely been lots of alarmist predictions, and unfortunately the mainstream media like to give the alarmist predictions lots of coverage.
You can't demand a citation for his statement, as he's disagreeing with your original claim. The onus is on you to provide some documentation that provides some truth to your statement. You made the original claim of "big oil" spending vast amounts of money. Therefore, you would be the one required to provide citations that back it up. And by requesting a citation on his statement, you are implying that there is a sinister, vast Big Oil conspiracy, for which you should be providing a citation.
I was ready to plunk down roughly $2000 for a new iMac, and they didn't announce it. How many others were also waiting? I realize the iPhone has become the primary source of revenue for Apple, but the iMac still provides a significant amount of money and shouldn't be ignored. If Apple wants to position their products in the upper end of the market, they need to keep the technology inside on the cutting edge.
I don't think so. The added costs of the warehouses everywhere, and the employees to staff them, will add a huge cost increase to their bottom line. They'll also have to carry much more inventory, since they'll have to keep the product in stock at each of these warehouses. This will likely result in more inventory write-downs. This is a move that opens a huge door for other online retailers, allowing them to step into the role Amazon is vacating.
Yes I looked at the original graphs. Did you? There's no "sharp kick up" correlating with the start of the industrial age on any of the charts in the article. As I already said, there is a jump towards the end of the line. It's hard to say exactly where it falls, but using a ruler on my monitor it looks like it corresponds with the 1930's.
Uh, I don't see a "sharp kick up" when we get to the industrial age in those graphs. When are you considering the start of the industrial age? Traditionally, it's the 1750-1800 range that is considered the start of the industrial age. I see a step up when we hit the 1930's, then a bowl like curve for the rest of the 20th century.
Maybe you need to stop getting your news from the liberal media in America, as they seem to love Chavez and won't report anything bad about him. There are two camps in Venezuela; those that support Chavez, and those that don't. Supporters of Chavez are rewarded with plenty of perks, while those that oppose him are arrested, attacked, bullied, and worse. Chavez isn't hugely popular among the people, he's only popular among his supporters. The only ones who will speak up are those that support him, as it's dangerous to speak badly about him. There were some good underground bloggers operating out of Caracas back around the recall election, and some of the stuff they reported on made it sound like Soviet Union style politics.
I find the majority of posters on slashdot that request citations do so not because they have an open mind on the subject, but because they're trying to silence someone they disagree with. If citations aren't provided, they declare the original claim to be false (which makes no sense logically, they should be providing citations themselves that prove the original claim to be false). If citations are provided, they will try to discount them, such as declaring the source of the citation to be biased. So when someone requests citations, I tend to assume they're the bad guy. If I disagree with someone's post, I'll go out and find my own citations that disprove it, rather than requesting them to provide citations to support it.
how about this? From the conclusion:
"The alternate hypothesis that there was fraud is consistent with our results, which is why we are unable to reject it."
I read the summary of the link you provided. It seems that they were merely observing the implementation of the electronic voting system to ensure it was fair, as opposed to looking for voter suppression, intimidation, multiple voting, etc. All your document says is the electronic system implemented didn't present an inherent bias when the voter showed up to vote.
No, you idiot! Venezuela used to be a democratic country. Chavez is making himself a permanent leader. He's shutting down any news organizations that are critical of him. His opponents are being silenced, bullied, jailed, or worse. Venezuelans aren't doing better because he's doing a good job. Only some of them are doing better because he's seized billions of dollars in assets and money and redistributed them to his loyal supporters. He's following the same path as hundreds of other dictators before him. Why do people refuse to see this?
Hahahahahah! You've got to be kidding me. The only people who believe Canada's healthcare is a good thing are the brainwashed fools who are lifelong Liberal Voters. The Canadian healthcare system is in tatters. In Ontario, we have a total of less than 100 MRI machines for the entire province. Many of these MRI machines are quite outdated and fail to provide the level of detail that modern MRI's provide. The provincial government has decided that hips and knees are a priority, so hospitals across the province prefer their orthopedic surgeons to perform these operations. For instance, Scarborough General has 5 orthopedic surgeons on staff. All 5 are hip and knee specialists. So what happens if you have wrist, elbow, shoulder, or ankle issues? Find another hospital. Problem is, all the other hospitals are doing the same. So you end up on a wait list. Some of the procedures have wait times measured in years. If Canada's health care system is so great, why do our politicians seek treatment in the US? I'll tell you why. They know that the best treatment isn't offered in Canada.
This argument doesn't make any sense. All the choices you've made have resulted in a poorly supported platform. That's not AMD's fault, it's yours. So if you want to pursue this platform, perhaps you should be writing the drivers yourself.
I don't see the validity of your argument. Are you saying that because you bought the hardware, and because AMD offers free drivers for Windows users, they should be required to provide drivers for any operating system you choose to run, simply because you bought the hardware?
I'm going to have to disagree with you. Crime rates and poverty levels throughout the United States show now correlation whatsoever.
South Carolina has a violent crime rate of 1414.3 violent crimes per 100K, and a poverty rate of 13%. West Virginia has a violent crime rate of only 275.2 violent crimes per 100K, and their poverty rate is 15% Even Mississippi, at 22% poverty, only has 291.3 VCper100K. Delaware is only 9% poverty, but has more than double the violent crimes at 689.2per100K. It also helps to look beyond the borders of the US. Many impoverished countries have lower crime rates than the USA, while others have high crime rates. Interestingly, crime rates in across the United States have been declining steadily for the past three years, and gun sales across the states have been up significantly too. It's possible that the fear of different forms of punishment (getting shot, going to hell, jail, execution, etc) influences the crime rates.
Yes, I've heard all the talking points already. Doom and gloom, coming our way! Evil CO2 is going to ruin the world! We need to act now, what can save us? A tax! A tax will save us!
Yeah, right. Sorry, I'm not a sucker, I want to see some actual data, not models where the inputs and factors are guessed at by the person programming the model. Give this article a read. CO2 is not the elephant in the room. CO2 on it's own will only cause a theoretical maximum of 1.1C increase for a doubling of CO2. That maximum requires water vapour and the other gases to not be very efficient at absorbing the infrared radiation so that there's something left for CO2 to absorb. Guess what? The scientists that have been "focusing their brains on this issue" haven't been able to measure how much infrared radiation our atmospheric CO2 actually absorbs! Why? Because the water vapour signal in our atmosphere is so strong, it's impossible to measure the CO2 effect!
As to the oceans being a short term sink for temperature, that's only a theory, with no actual data to support the claim. The ARGO temperature recordings show no additional heat in the oceans since 2004. And why was that theory put forward in the first place? They needed an explanation for why there was no continued warming for a decade! If the theory of CO2 forced warming is true, there has to be a whole lot of heat building up somewhere, correct? The scientists have been unable to find it in the atmosphere, so the only other possibility is the oceans! Well guess what, they missed one possibility; Maybe the theory of CO2 forced warming isn't correct!
There is so little evidence for any alternative it is beyond doubt.
Have you even looked into the possibility of evidence for alternatives? Because there is lots of it out there. Have you looked at the work of Henrik Svensmark? He found a link between cloud formation and cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are affected by our sun. When our sun is in a high sunspot cycle, like those we experienced in the 90's, the increased output from our sun blocks many of the incoming cosmic rays. As a result, we would experience less cloud formation than in a low sunspot cycle. And the historical sunspot cycle correlates pretty well with temperatures. What doesn't correlate well is the CO2 record and the temperature record. According to all the models, as our CO2 levels continue to rise, the temperature should be continuing to rise. But we had a dramatic decline in the 70's that can't be explained if CO2 is as important a contributor as we're now being told, and we've now had a decade without any increase in average temperature while CO2 output continues to grow. We're diverging more and more from the predicted path of continued temperature increase due to CO2. So obviously there's plenty of evidence to suggest that they don't have it right yet. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. But so is methane, so is water vapour, so are many other gases in our atmosphere that are more plentiful than CO2. Is there any radiation left for CO2 to absorb that hasn't already been absorbed by the water vapour and/or the other gases? To this date, that question is still unanswered. Sorry for wanting everything explained 100%, but I need to know that it actually is a solid theory if I'm going to suffer a massive change in lifestyle. Interesting how their only solution to the problem is to tax CO2.
You don't have any clue about what you're talking about, do you? Maybe you should read the papers and analysis of the Law Dome O18 data set first. The ratios of O18 and O16 in our atmosphere are global. Global temperature trends will result in either higher concentrations of O18 in the polar glaciers (warmer) or lower concentrations of O18 in the polar glaciers (colder). This is one of the more accurate climate signals the scientists have to work with. And my comment has nothing to do with "denial", it has everything to do with accuracy and honesty. And it's not about cherry picking. In fact, it was a scientist by the name of Gergis that decided to cherry pick data and exclude the Law Dome O18 set from her analysis. Why? Because it didn't fit her conclusion of "unprecedented warming". Incidentally, the data set is one of the highest resolution data sets available so far, and should be included in any long term global temperature reconstruction.
Slashdot Mirror
Is "denier" a scientifically factual term?
are you kidding me? You dismiss an article completely, simply because it's not peer-reviewed? What about the BEST paper by Muller, has it passed peer review?
wow, that's quite the character assassination! You really have your hate on for this guy, don't you? FYI, he is not funded by the Heartland Institute. He requested a donation from them for a single project that required some significant investment in servers, programming, and bandwidth. And in regards to your "peer reviewed" article, they were using a small subset of the total stations. In fact, they got their data from Watts directly. However, he notes that it was an incomplete survey they worked off of, only 43% of the stations that he had surveyed up to that point, and the data hadn't been quality controlled. He also found issues with the algorithms that are being used to "adjust" the data. Also of note is the work of climatologist James Goodridge, who found an increase in temperature of 0.9F when thermometers were upgraded from from mercury to MMTS. These are discrepancies that still haven't been accounted for. Of course, for you global warming is clearly a religion, and it's not about the science at all. You believe wholeheartedly, so if someone questions the accuracy, he's a "denier" and in the pay of "big oil". He can't possibly have any valid input, can he?
ya, that's why free Linux has replaced expensive Windows everywhere, and free Open Office has replaced Microsoft Office everywhere, and free Android smartphones with a 3 year contract have completely killed off the $99 and $199 3 Year contract iPhones. There are hundreds of examples that completely disprove your theory. Free programming languages, compilers, etc that haven't killed off the paid for development solutions, Adobe Acrobat vs a multitude of free PDF creation tools, free antivirus software vs paid for antivirus software, Flash vs free competitors, etc
Ballmer sucks. Bad.
I don't think linking to skepticalscience helps your case at all, the site is clearly being run by people who have already decided AGW is real and happening. They're not being objective about it, they label others as "deniers" on a regular basis. Take a look at the chart they're using vs a google search for the same chart. Why is their chart different than the rest? All the other charts show that real temperatures most closely match Hansen's scenario C, which involved CO2 emissions ceasing to increase past 1990. Guess what? CO2 emissions continued to increase past 1990, and yet the data best fits that scenario. Secondly, don't complain that "speculation of one scientist somehow mutates into an absolute prediction". I didn't say that it was an absolute prediction, nor did I say that all climate scientists were in agreement with the statement. I presented you with multiple references to extreme predictions, as per the original comment. Why is it that you'll argue so vehemently with anyone who questions the AGW theories, but you're absolutely silent when these "extreme predictions" get posted? You're clearly not objective about the subject, you've already drawn your conclusions.
He's come out with some pretty apocalyptic predictions, such as his 1988 chart showing 3 different scenarios, all of which are looking to be way off the mark. And Al Gore had some pretty wild assertions about sea level rise in his movie too. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, also had some wild claims of Himalayan glaciers all being gone by 2035. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted an ice free arctic by 2015. And here's another prediction for some catastrophic sea level rise. There has definitely been lots of alarmist predictions, and unfortunately the mainstream media like to give the alarmist predictions lots of coverage.
You can't demand a citation for his statement, as he's disagreeing with your original claim. The onus is on you to provide some documentation that provides some truth to your statement. You made the original claim of "big oil" spending vast amounts of money. Therefore, you would be the one required to provide citations that back it up. And by requesting a citation on his statement, you are implying that there is a sinister, vast Big Oil conspiracy, for which you should be providing a citation.
I was ready to plunk down roughly $2000 for a new iMac, and they didn't announce it. How many others were also waiting? I realize the iPhone has become the primary source of revenue for Apple, but the iMac still provides a significant amount of money and shouldn't be ignored. If Apple wants to position their products in the upper end of the market, they need to keep the technology inside on the cutting edge.
I don't think so. The added costs of the warehouses everywhere, and the employees to staff them, will add a huge cost increase to their bottom line. They'll also have to carry much more inventory, since they'll have to keep the product in stock at each of these warehouses. This will likely result in more inventory write-downs. This is a move that opens a huge door for other online retailers, allowing them to step into the role Amazon is vacating.
Yes I looked at the original graphs. Did you? There's no "sharp kick up" correlating with the start of the industrial age on any of the charts in the article. As I already said, there is a jump towards the end of the line. It's hard to say exactly where it falls, but using a ruler on my monitor it looks like it corresponds with the 1930's.
Uh, I don't see a "sharp kick up" when we get to the industrial age in those graphs. When are you considering the start of the industrial age? Traditionally, it's the 1750-1800 range that is considered the start of the industrial age. I see a step up when we hit the 1930's, then a bowl like curve for the rest of the 20th century.
Maybe you need to stop getting your news from the liberal media in America, as they seem to love Chavez and won't report anything bad about him. There are two camps in Venezuela; those that support Chavez, and those that don't. Supporters of Chavez are rewarded with plenty of perks, while those that oppose him are arrested, attacked, bullied, and worse. Chavez isn't hugely popular among the people, he's only popular among his supporters. The only ones who will speak up are those that support him, as it's dangerous to speak badly about him. There were some good underground bloggers operating out of Caracas back around the recall election, and some of the stuff they reported on made it sound like Soviet Union style politics.
I find the majority of posters on slashdot that request citations do so not because they have an open mind on the subject, but because they're trying to silence someone they disagree with. If citations aren't provided, they declare the original claim to be false (which makes no sense logically, they should be providing citations themselves that prove the original claim to be false). If citations are provided, they will try to discount them, such as declaring the source of the citation to be biased. So when someone requests citations, I tend to assume they're the bad guy. If I disagree with someone's post, I'll go out and find my own citations that disprove it, rather than requesting them to provide citations to support it.
how about this? From the conclusion:
"The alternate hypothesis that there was fraud is consistent with our results, which is why we are unable to reject it." I read the summary of the link you provided. It seems that they were merely observing the implementation of the electronic voting system to ensure it was fair, as opposed to looking for voter suppression, intimidation, multiple voting, etc. All your document says is the electronic system implemented didn't present an inherent bias when the voter showed up to vote.
No, you idiot! Venezuela used to be a democratic country. Chavez is making himself a permanent leader. He's shutting down any news organizations that are critical of him. His opponents are being silenced, bullied, jailed, or worse. Venezuelans aren't doing better because he's doing a good job. Only some of them are doing better because he's seized billions of dollars in assets and money and redistributed them to his loyal supporters. He's following the same path as hundreds of other dictators before him. Why do people refuse to see this?
citation 1
citation 2
citation 3
citation 4
citation 5
citation 6
citation 7
citation 8
citation 9
citation 10
Okay, there's 10 citations for you. Begin your spin, denouncements, deflections, justifications, and outright lies.....
Hahahahahah! You've got to be kidding me. The only people who believe Canada's healthcare is a good thing are the brainwashed fools who are lifelong Liberal Voters. The Canadian healthcare system is in tatters. In Ontario, we have a total of less than 100 MRI machines for the entire province. Many of these MRI machines are quite outdated and fail to provide the level of detail that modern MRI's provide. The provincial government has decided that hips and knees are a priority, so hospitals across the province prefer their orthopedic surgeons to perform these operations. For instance, Scarborough General has 5 orthopedic surgeons on staff. All 5 are hip and knee specialists. So what happens if you have wrist, elbow, shoulder, or ankle issues? Find another hospital. Problem is, all the other hospitals are doing the same. So you end up on a wait list. Some of the procedures have wait times measured in years. If Canada's health care system is so great, why do our politicians seek treatment in the US? I'll tell you why. They know that the best treatment isn't offered in Canada.
This argument doesn't make any sense. All the choices you've made have resulted in a poorly supported platform. That's not AMD's fault, it's yours. So if you want to pursue this platform, perhaps you should be writing the drivers yourself.
I don't see the validity of your argument. Are you saying that because you bought the hardware, and because AMD offers free drivers for Windows users, they should be required to provide drivers for any operating system you choose to run, simply because you bought the hardware?
I'm going to have to disagree with you. Crime rates and poverty levels throughout the United States show now correlation whatsoever. South Carolina has a violent crime rate of 1414.3 violent crimes per 100K, and a poverty rate of 13%. West Virginia has a violent crime rate of only 275.2 violent crimes per 100K, and their poverty rate is 15% Even Mississippi, at 22% poverty, only has 291.3 VCper100K. Delaware is only 9% poverty, but has more than double the violent crimes at 689.2per100K. It also helps to look beyond the borders of the US. Many impoverished countries have lower crime rates than the USA, while others have high crime rates. Interestingly, crime rates in across the United States have been declining steadily for the past three years, and gun sales across the states have been up significantly too. It's possible that the fear of different forms of punishment (getting shot, going to hell, jail, execution, etc) influences the crime rates.
Yes, I've heard all the talking points already. Doom and gloom, coming our way! Evil CO2 is going to ruin the world! We need to act now, what can save us? A tax! A tax will save us!
Yeah, right. Sorry, I'm not a sucker, I want to see some actual data, not models where the inputs and factors are guessed at by the person programming the model. Give this article a read. CO2 is not the elephant in the room. CO2 on it's own will only cause a theoretical maximum of 1.1C increase for a doubling of CO2. That maximum requires water vapour and the other gases to not be very efficient at absorbing the infrared radiation so that there's something left for CO2 to absorb. Guess what? The scientists that have been "focusing their brains on this issue" haven't been able to measure how much infrared radiation our atmospheric CO2 actually absorbs! Why? Because the water vapour signal in our atmosphere is so strong, it's impossible to measure the CO2 effect!
As to the oceans being a short term sink for temperature, that's only a theory, with no actual data to support the claim. The ARGO temperature recordings show no additional heat in the oceans since 2004. And why was that theory put forward in the first place? They needed an explanation for why there was no continued warming for a decade! If the theory of CO2 forced warming is true, there has to be a whole lot of heat building up somewhere, correct? The scientists have been unable to find it in the atmosphere, so the only other possibility is the oceans! Well guess what, they missed one possibility; Maybe the theory of CO2 forced warming isn't correct!
There is so little evidence for any alternative it is beyond doubt.
Have you even looked into the possibility of evidence for alternatives? Because there is lots of it out there. Have you looked at the work of Henrik Svensmark? He found a link between cloud formation and cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are affected by our sun. When our sun is in a high sunspot cycle, like those we experienced in the 90's, the increased output from our sun blocks many of the incoming cosmic rays. As a result, we would experience less cloud formation than in a low sunspot cycle. And the historical sunspot cycle correlates pretty well with temperatures. What doesn't correlate well is the CO2 record and the temperature record. According to all the models, as our CO2 levels continue to rise, the temperature should be continuing to rise. But we had a dramatic decline in the 70's that can't be explained if CO2 is as important a contributor as we're now being told, and we've now had a decade without any increase in average temperature while CO2 output continues to grow. We're diverging more and more from the predicted path of continued temperature increase due to CO2. So obviously there's plenty of evidence to suggest that they don't have it right yet. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. But so is methane, so is water vapour, so are many other gases in our atmosphere that are more plentiful than CO2. Is there any radiation left for CO2 to absorb that hasn't already been absorbed by the water vapour and/or the other gases? To this date, that question is still unanswered. Sorry for wanting everything explained 100%, but I need to know that it actually is a solid theory if I'm going to suffer a massive change in lifestyle. Interesting how their only solution to the problem is to tax CO2.
You don't have any clue about what you're talking about, do you? Maybe you should read the papers and analysis of the Law Dome O18 data set first. The ratios of O18 and O16 in our atmosphere are global. Global temperature trends will result in either higher concentrations of O18 in the polar glaciers (warmer) or lower concentrations of O18 in the polar glaciers (colder). This is one of the more accurate climate signals the scientists have to work with. And my comment has nothing to do with "denial", it has everything to do with accuracy and honesty. And it's not about cherry picking. In fact, it was a scientist by the name of Gergis that decided to cherry pick data and exclude the Law Dome O18 set from her analysis. Why? Because it didn't fit her conclusion of "unprecedented warming". Incidentally, the data set is one of the highest resolution data sets available so far, and should be included in any long term global temperature reconstruction.
We let our lawmakers decide. No need for science, we just pass a law to stop sea level rise from being planned for.
This post is obviously a troll. Do you even know the background of the law that passed, why it was passed, and what was attempted prior to this law?