When it's the "UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Here's the BBC's description of IPCC: "The IPCC itself is a small organisation, run from Geneva with a full time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it do so on a voluntary basis." http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
Relax, people. There's no U.N resolution here; there's no consensus of nations here recognizing the urgency that requires this "tripling" of non-carbon-based energy. It's easy for the press to say this is the report from the U.N., when it's not.
If you get 12 scientists in a room that have volunteered to produce a report on global warming, what would you expect them to produce? Something that says everything's peachy?
You won't see this old boy freaking out over something dumb like this.
Here is my satirical quote for the day (made from my earlier quotation from the study report):
"There are a variety of gauges for validity of arguments found on Slashdot and other comment-capable websites, such as the amount of insulting and abusive comments made in replies and the lack of true information and argument therein. Fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the variations in validity of comments over wide ranges of time scales."
It is true that I'm not satisfied with these proxies being used by the author, especially when he claims to have a 99% certainty in his conclusion that "global warming" is man-made. (Of course, the term "global warming" can mean anything from a millionth of a degree up to something out of a sci-fi movie, so it's a meaningless conclusion.)
You claim that we know what the deposition of CO2 does to the planet. No, that is precisely what is in dispute and why this author published this study.
Curious how you think my "claims" are "extraordinary"... from my perspective, it is extraordinary that anyone can think they can derive the average global temperature to a factor under one degree 500 years ago by measuring tree rings. Proxies might be well understood and they might be the best method that can be used, but that doesn't make them accurate, nor does that make the use of them good science.
And you've tried again to place the burden of proof upon me. What evidence do YOU have that these proxies are accurate to reach the conclusion this author makes? Like it or not, I'm not going to cut down 500 year-old trees or scuba-dive to measure the sediments at the bottom of some lake to determine the correctness of this author's conclusion. That is why there are people who purport to be scientists, and why there are reports published that should include such proofs.
I admire your argumentative techniques, but I remain unpersuaded.
Let's suppose that you're right, and it can be ascertained what the CO2 levels were 500 years ago. How, pray tell, are you going to get the temperature data?
500 years ago there were no digital electronic devices that would provide temperature measurements down to a fraction of a degree that the author claims to have in his possession. I would imagine that the best that could be had was measurements by a bulb thermometer, for at least the earlier half of the 500 years of the period of this study. There were no national standards institutes that could be relied upon to calibrate their thermometers, and that would certainly be necessary if one were to compare the average temperature over a period of years and even centuries in any given location.
I don't need to provide you any competing data. This author relies upon the growth of tree rings and depositions of sediment to infer what temperatures were. You show me how his methods of gathering data are reliable, and perhaps I'll be persuaded by you.
You employ a classic trick of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the author of the study, not upon me to prove him wrong. He must persuade his audience, not the other way around. Even so, I think I've managed to prove this study unreliable without using anything but common sense.
The study infers what the temperature was from "a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales."
In other words, the author relies upon a strong (perhaps even one-to-one given his 99% certainty claim) relationship between the average seasonal temperature from the thickness of a tree ring, or a layer in some ice or lake sediments. Now I may be a bit ignorant on the subject, but I do believe that we'd be talking about trees that are 500 years old, which only grow in certain places (such as Sequoia trees on the Pacific coast). Ice cores 500 years old must be either far north or in Antarctica. Lake sediments will accumulate only where there is a basin fed by significant rainfall. So, this author's sampling is from a few distinct locations around the world.
Now the thicknesses of these metrics does not prove temperature, it suggests the amount of precipitation. Trees grow better where there is rain, and ice and sediments accumulate more when precipitation increases. Show me the proof that an increase in temperature in these locations increases precipitation, and I might begin to believe this author. (I imagine that will be difficult to do, because there was no one around 500 years ago taking temperature readings at the locations of these metrics.)
(Oh, and for you global warming nuts out there: please forgive me for examining this intellectually.)
Oh, really, AC? Well, where on that page you reference does it say how many studies are being funded by Koch Industries. (Again, zero.) At best it suggests that Koch industries is hiring marketers and supporting politicians, not scientists. (Oh, and it didn't escape me that this page is on the Greenpeace website, well known for its biased views in "saving the planet".)
There must be some truth to my "complete bullshit", AC, or your response would have included something more than abuse and biased marketing fluff.
Even in the face of your reply, my premise still holds that the authors of this study have a vested interest that biases them toward the result that you prefer.
"You can get all the relevant data yourself, and run the tests yourself"
No, you can't. The data wasn't recorded with the needed accuracy over 500 years to reach the conclusion of the study. If you wanted to be accurate, what you should have said is: you can get all the data used by the study, and run the tests yourself to test the outcome of the study.
You have an obvious bias, microbox, and I hardly believe that you are a scientist as you claim. Being a true scientist requires an objective view.
And yet you insist that these "deniers" are clinging to 1% on the basis of a single study. You treat this study as if it was carried by Moses down from the mountain...
If your study cannot stand in the face of criticism, how strong is it? (Really?)
Nice try, BasilBrush. The point of so many "useful idiots" here with a "geek card" is that this study is questionable, not that any consensus has been proven wrong. If you're going to mischaracterize the words of others, at least do it with some logic, please.
"Tell that to the shills working for the fossil fuel industry! Or the Koch brothers would hire them."
Oh, I love this discussion! Here we have those who say the fossil fuel companies don't care about global warming, claiming that these same companies would hire those doing climate studies to discover the truth about global warming. You can't have it both ways. How many studies have you seen coming from Exxon-Mobile that concern climate change? (Hint: Zero.) There's no opportunity for these scientists outside of academia, and academia is in large part supported by grants from "those who care".
What other "important" climate topics are we talking about? The direction and speed of the winds over the Himalayas? The prevailing ocean currents around Antarctica? Oh, now there you have some interesting topics. (Not.)
These people have a vested interest in being experts that will be called upon (and paid) to do conferences, books, sit on boards, etc. It is you who is ignorant of academia, my friend.
Folks, there is no doubt that man causes some degree of global warming. It may even be significant.
But putting forward a very questionable "study" with little practical "science" and having almost nothing that can be repeated or validated does not help the cause of proving global warming. It harms it! With each one of these "studies" it makes me wonder why there isn't some expert who has proven the thesis, with so many interested "scientists".
These news stories might be adequate for the masses, but definitely not for me, thanks.
People who actually work in the field and spend decades of their life in this dedicated study have a vested interest in reaching a positive conclusion. If they found that there was no man-made global warming, they'd be out of jobs.
Going a little further: the decision at the bottom of page 15 hints that the litmus test of whether venue would be proper where the server is located is whether there was "some sense of venue having been freely chosen by the defendant." Here, the defendant may not have even known where the server was located. (Do you know where all the servers you access are located when you're using the Internet?) I think the prosecutor would have to show that knowledge on the part of the defendant before he could show that venue was proper.
Venue is a tricky subject. It is a favorite for law school professors to test upon. I wouldn't presume to ever completely know the subject.
Well, I was trying to keep it simple, but I don't think this Court of Appeals would agree with you. There is a significant discussion beginning at the bottom of page 14 that addresses, for example, whether the "locus of the effect of the criminal conduct" can confer venue. All this Court decided is that where there was no contact with the prosecutor's chosen venue (New Jersey) other than the alleged victims were located there, that venue was improper. The question of whether the site of the servers improperly accessed could confer venue has not yet been decided.
That's like arguing that a shoplifter took a knife, but didn't intend to stab anyone with it, so he's innocent. The illegal act was the collection of the email addresses that AT&T failed to properly protect.
Think of it this way: AT&T had a security plan (a wall) to protect a collection of email addresses (a pot of gold coins), and AT&T failed to notice that there was a security flaw (a hole in the wall). If Weev walked up to the wall and declared there was a hole there, that would have been legal. What Weev did was to write a program that crawled through the hole that collected the coins. Weev didn't have a right to possess the email addresses, and they were within a security envelope.
I'm not saying AT&T is guiltless here: I think they had a responsibility to their customers that they failed to meet. I'm not saying that I like this particular law. But under this law, Weev was apparently guilty.
Weev did more than expose the security flaw. He ran a scheme to collect the email addresses behind the flawed security scheme, and collected over 100K of them. If he (and his partner) had stopped when the security flaw was discovered, then there would not have been a crime committed.
From the decision: "To be found guilty, the Government must prove that the defendant (1) intentionally (2) accessed without authorization (or exceeded authorized access to) a (3) protected computer and (4) thereby obtained information." I haven't read this particular law, but I doubt that it has a provision that gives blanket immunity to government agents/employees. The minute you step over the line of unauthorized access to a computer (assuming you don't have a warrant), you've just committed a crime.
All of Congress and the President act out of fear more than anything else. Which do you think would hurt the Democrat's image more in the mind of the average citizen: to have the NSA snooping in his underwear, or to have a passenger jet take out another population nexus? All of you shouting about invasions of privacy are fighting a loosing battle. The average citizen (having barely a high school education and knowing very well the history of his favorite TV star and almost nothing about the constitution) will not care until he can see how the actions of the government actually affect him.
Why would Obama bring attention to this by issuing an executive order? That only exposes him to more derogatory comments from the Democrat's critics. Obama may be ignorant, but he ain't stupid!
I've got a Fitbit, and I'm going to keep wearing mine. I find it to be pretty impressive. I clip mine to my shirt pocket and off I go. It's got a little wireless USB dongle for syncing to my computer (you just have to come near the computer every few days to get a report by their website) and another USB dongle for charging it (which gets used for about 20 mins every week).
The thing is intelligent enough not to count sporadic movements (e.g. me turning in my office chair), but it will count my short trips to the copier or break room. It will give an estimate of the distance I've walked during the day, the calories I've burned in ordinary activities, and it will tell me the time if I want to push the little button enough times. I don't think I'd use it to give better than a rough estimate of activity, but as far as keeping me above a rough threshold of activity is does a pretty darned good job. At the end of the day it tells me how much of a walk I need to keep up a regular level of activity-- and that's all I need it to do.
For most people, this camera will not be used on the governmentally-funded highways. They'll be used in their driveways. (Oh, I know there are a minority of people who park on the streets -- but those aren't typically federally subsidized.) This seems to be another example of the government meddling with my life and my property.
And I have to wonder: how many accidents will this CAUSE because some fool of a driver can't keep his attention off the rear view while he's driving in traffic watching that tailgater behind him?
If this is such a good idea, why haven't the car manufacturers already put them in?
If the reporting were a completely reliable process that yielded the same result on the same population, regardless of the time and practitioners involved, then I'd worry. Given that practitioners make their money off of positive diagnoses, I would be highly suspicious that many of these are simply therapists who are trying to fill their calendars.
(I say that knowing that my ex had my three children tested by one practitioner, who suddenly found all of mine on the same day to be abnormal and in need of governmental assistance.)
When no one watches the watchers, this is the result.
Slashdot Mirror
When it's the "UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Here's the BBC's description of IPCC: "The IPCC itself is a small organisation, run from Geneva with a full time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it do so on a voluntary basis." http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
Relax, people. There's no U.N resolution here; there's no consensus of nations here recognizing the urgency that requires this "tripling" of non-carbon-based energy. It's easy for the press to say this is the report from the U.N., when it's not.
If you get 12 scientists in a room that have volunteered to produce a report on global warming, what would you expect them to produce? Something that says everything's peachy?
You won't see this old boy freaking out over something dumb like this.
Here is my satirical quote for the day (made from my earlier quotation from the study report):
"There are a variety of gauges for validity of arguments found on Slashdot and other comment-capable websites, such as the amount of insulting and abusive comments made in replies and the lack of true information and argument therein. Fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the variations in validity of comments over wide ranges of time scales."
'nuf said.
It is true that I'm not satisfied with these proxies being used by the author, especially when he claims to have a 99% certainty in his conclusion that "global warming" is man-made. (Of course, the term "global warming" can mean anything from a millionth of a degree up to something out of a sci-fi movie, so it's a meaningless conclusion.)
You claim that we know what the deposition of CO2 does to the planet. No, that is precisely what is in dispute and why this author published this study.
Curious how you think my "claims" are "extraordinary" ... from my perspective, it is extraordinary that anyone can think they can derive the average global temperature to a factor under one degree 500 years ago by measuring tree rings. Proxies might be well understood and they might be the best method that can be used, but that doesn't make them accurate, nor does that make the use of them good science.
And you've tried again to place the burden of proof upon me. What evidence do YOU have that these proxies are accurate to reach the conclusion this author makes? Like it or not, I'm not going to cut down 500 year-old trees or scuba-dive to measure the sediments at the bottom of some lake to determine the correctness of this author's conclusion. That is why there are people who purport to be scientists, and why there are reports published that should include such proofs.
I admire your argumentative techniques, but I remain unpersuaded.
Let's suppose that you're right, and it can be ascertained what the CO2 levels were 500 years ago. How, pray tell, are you going to get the temperature data?
500 years ago there were no digital electronic devices that would provide temperature measurements down to a fraction of a degree that the author claims to have in his possession. I would imagine that the best that could be had was measurements by a bulb thermometer, for at least the earlier half of the 500 years of the period of this study. There were no national standards institutes that could be relied upon to calibrate their thermometers, and that would certainly be necessary if one were to compare the average temperature over a period of years and even centuries in any given location.
I don't need to provide you any competing data. This author relies upon the growth of tree rings and depositions of sediment to infer what temperatures were. You show me how his methods of gathering data are reliable, and perhaps I'll be persuaded by you.
You employ a classic trick of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the author of the study, not upon me to prove him wrong. He must persuade his audience, not the other way around. Even so, I think I've managed to prove this study unreliable without using anything but common sense.
The study infers what the temperature was from "a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales."
In other words, the author relies upon a strong (perhaps even one-to-one given his 99% certainty claim) relationship between the average seasonal temperature from the thickness of a tree ring, or a layer in some ice or lake sediments. Now I may be a bit ignorant on the subject, but I do believe that we'd be talking about trees that are 500 years old, which only grow in certain places (such as Sequoia trees on the Pacific coast). Ice cores 500 years old must be either far north or in Antarctica. Lake sediments will accumulate only where there is a basin fed by significant rainfall. So, this author's sampling is from a few distinct locations around the world.
Now the thicknesses of these metrics does not prove temperature, it suggests the amount of precipitation. Trees grow better where there is rain, and ice and sediments accumulate more when precipitation increases. Show me the proof that an increase in temperature in these locations increases precipitation, and I might begin to believe this author. (I imagine that will be difficult to do, because there was no one around 500 years ago taking temperature readings at the locations of these metrics.)
(Oh, and for you global warming nuts out there: please forgive me for examining this intellectually.)
Oh, really, AC? Well, where on that page you reference does it say how many studies are being funded by Koch Industries. (Again, zero.) At best it suggests that Koch industries is hiring marketers and supporting politicians, not scientists. (Oh, and it didn't escape me that this page is on the Greenpeace website, well known for its biased views in "saving the planet".)
There must be some truth to my "complete bullshit", AC, or your response would have included something more than abuse and biased marketing fluff.
Even in the face of your reply, my premise still holds that the authors of this study have a vested interest that biases them toward the result that you prefer.
"You can get all the relevant data yourself, and run the tests yourself"
No, you can't. The data wasn't recorded with the needed accuracy over 500 years to reach the conclusion of the study. If you wanted to be accurate, what you should have said is: you can get all the data used by the study, and run the tests yourself to test the outcome of the study.
You have an obvious bias, microbox, and I hardly believe that you are a scientist as you claim. Being a true scientist requires an objective view.
And yet you insist that these "deniers" are clinging to 1% on the basis of a single study. You treat this study as if it was carried by Moses down from the mountain...
If your study cannot stand in the face of criticism, how strong is it? (Really?)
Nice try, BasilBrush. The point of so many "useful idiots" here with a "geek card" is that this study is questionable, not that any consensus has been proven wrong. If you're going to mischaracterize the words of others, at least do it with some logic, please.
You don't need to be a doctor to know that most people have two arms. Arker's qualification is that he has some apparent sense.
"Tell that to the shills working for the fossil fuel industry! Or the Koch brothers would hire them."
Oh, I love this discussion! Here we have those who say the fossil fuel companies don't care about global warming, claiming that these same companies would hire those doing climate studies to discover the truth about global warming. You can't have it both ways. How many studies have you seen coming from Exxon-Mobile that concern climate change? (Hint: Zero.) There's no opportunity for these scientists outside of academia, and academia is in large part supported by grants from "those who care".
What other "important" climate topics are we talking about? The direction and speed of the winds over the Himalayas? The prevailing ocean currents around Antarctica? Oh, now there you have some interesting topics. (Not.)
These people have a vested interest in being experts that will be called upon (and paid) to do conferences, books, sit on boards, etc. It is you who is ignorant of academia, my friend.
You need to surrender your geek card.
Oh yea. And I'll surrender my truth card while I'm at it...
Folks, there is no doubt that man causes some degree of global warming. It may even be significant.
But putting forward a very questionable "study" with little practical "science" and having almost nothing that can be repeated or validated does not help the cause of proving global warming. It harms it! With each one of these "studies" it makes me wonder why there isn't some expert who has proven the thesis, with so many interested "scientists".
These news stories might be adequate for the masses, but definitely not for me, thanks.
People who actually work in the field and spend decades of their life in this dedicated study have a vested interest in reaching a positive conclusion. If they found that there was no man-made global warming, they'd be out of jobs.
A baker will always claim his bread is the best.
Going a little further: the decision at the bottom of page 15 hints that the litmus test of whether venue would be proper where the server is located is whether there was "some sense of venue having been freely chosen by the defendant." Here, the defendant may not have even known where the server was located. (Do you know where all the servers you access are located when you're using the Internet?) I think the prosecutor would have to show that knowledge on the part of the defendant before he could show that venue was proper.
Venue is a tricky subject. It is a favorite for law school professors to test upon. I wouldn't presume to ever completely know the subject.
Well, I was trying to keep it simple, but I don't think this Court of Appeals would agree with you. There is a significant discussion beginning at the bottom of page 14 that addresses, for example, whether the "locus of the effect of the criminal conduct" can confer venue. All this Court decided is that where there was no contact with the prosecutor's chosen venue (New Jersey) other than the alleged victims were located there, that venue was improper. The question of whether the site of the servers improperly accessed could confer venue has not yet been decided.
I don't think so. (That would violate the 1st amendment, as in free speech.) The crime would lie in running that code.
That's like arguing that a shoplifter took a knife, but didn't intend to stab anyone with it, so he's innocent. The illegal act was the collection of the email addresses that AT&T failed to properly protect.
Think of it this way: AT&T had a security plan (a wall) to protect a collection of email addresses (a pot of gold coins), and AT&T failed to notice that there was a security flaw (a hole in the wall). If Weev walked up to the wall and declared there was a hole there, that would have been legal. What Weev did was to write a program that crawled through the hole that collected the coins. Weev didn't have a right to possess the email addresses, and they were within a security envelope.
I'm not saying AT&T is guiltless here: I think they had a responsibility to their customers that they failed to meet. I'm not saying that I like this particular law. But under this law, Weev was apparently guilty.
Weev did more than expose the security flaw. He ran a scheme to collect the email addresses behind the flawed security scheme, and collected over 100K of them. If he (and his partner) had stopped when the security flaw was discovered, then there would not have been a crime committed.
The decision explains: venue attaches to the location where the criminal acts were *committed*, not where the alleged victims resided.
From the decision: "To be found guilty, the Government must prove that the defendant (1) intentionally (2) accessed without authorization (or exceeded authorized access to) a (3) protected computer and (4) thereby obtained information." I haven't read this particular law, but I doubt that it has a provision that gives blanket immunity to government agents/employees. The minute you step over the line of unauthorized access to a computer (assuming you don't have a warrant), you've just committed a crime.
Ooooooh ... where's my popcorn?!
All of Congress and the President act out of fear more than anything else. Which do you think would hurt the Democrat's image more in the mind of the average citizen: to have the NSA snooping in his underwear, or to have a passenger jet take out another population nexus? All of you shouting about invasions of privacy are fighting a loosing battle. The average citizen (having barely a high school education and knowing very well the history of his favorite TV star and almost nothing about the constitution) will not care until he can see how the actions of the government actually affect him.
Why would Obama bring attention to this by issuing an executive order? That only exposes him to more derogatory comments from the Democrat's critics. Obama may be ignorant, but he ain't stupid!
I've got a Fitbit, and I'm going to keep wearing mine. I find it to be pretty impressive. I clip mine to my shirt pocket and off I go. It's got a little wireless USB dongle for syncing to my computer (you just have to come near the computer every few days to get a report by their website) and another USB dongle for charging it (which gets used for about 20 mins every week).
The thing is intelligent enough not to count sporadic movements (e.g. me turning in my office chair), but it will count my short trips to the copier or break room. It will give an estimate of the distance I've walked during the day, the calories I've burned in ordinary activities, and it will tell me the time if I want to push the little button enough times. I don't think I'd use it to give better than a rough estimate of activity, but as far as keeping me above a rough threshold of activity is does a pretty darned good job. At the end of the day it tells me how much of a walk I need to keep up a regular level of activity-- and that's all I need it to do.
For most people, this camera will not be used on the governmentally-funded highways. They'll be used in their driveways. (Oh, I know there are a minority of people who park on the streets -- but those aren't typically federally subsidized.) This seems to be another example of the government meddling with my life and my property.
And I have to wonder: how many accidents will this CAUSE because some fool of a driver can't keep his attention off the rear view while he's driving in traffic watching that tailgater behind him?
If this is such a good idea, why haven't the car manufacturers already put them in?
If the reporting were a completely reliable process that yielded the same result on the same population, regardless of the time and practitioners involved, then I'd worry. Given that practitioners make their money off of positive diagnoses, I would be highly suspicious that many of these are simply therapists who are trying to fill their calendars.
(I say that knowing that my ex had my three children tested by one practitioner, who suddenly found all of mine on the same day to be abnormal and in need of governmental assistance.)
When no one watches the watchers, this is the result.