I didn't say everyone goes to Mars. Just enough to get a sustainable population of people to sit around looking smug. The vast majority of humans on earth will still die off - a few in the impact event, a lot more in the collapse of agriculture that follows. It'll take centuries to rebuild.
Yes. A plan which involves billions of people dying unnecessarily seems, well, not like a good plan. Good thing that nobody would ever agree to such an insane plan.
Or do you want the real reason?
I'd like a real reason, but I'm not holding my breath.
Because it's there.
That's not a reason. That's like saying: "We should build a popsicle skyscraper - because we can!" It's nonsense.
ook at what has come about in previous ages of exploration - social experiments, new models of society. There's no land left on this planet worth settling.
The last real attempt at settlement was Greenland and prior to that 10000 years or more ago. On what are you basing your assertion that this was an a time of social expansion (more than say, the Enlightment, or Pax Romana)?
There has only been one significant imapct event in the Earth's history, which is the one that created the moon. The rest have ben relatively minor - a danger for life at the time, but not dangerous to us, with our ability to adapt, tunnel and otherwise mitigate the dangers associated with abrupt climate change. At no point since the moon calved off has the earth been less habitable than mars.
And as time passes the danger of imapct diminishes, since Jupiter is doing a great job sweeping the inner solar system clean of likely debris - thanks big guy! The sun is now middle aged - chances are we will never be hit by anything likely to make us extinct.
Better to go colonise Mars while we can, or else set up some long-term bunkers deep underground with enough food supplies and nuclear-powered grow-lights to last until the atmosphere clears.
Well, we don't have lift capacity to lift 9 billion or so humans, plus all the other life forms to Mars - plus the obvious disadvantage that if we move there, we can never come back, and even on the worst day the Earth is more habitable than Mars will ever be. So the other option is looking like the viable one.
Well, you certainly wouldn't try a nuclear bomb, that would hardly have any delta V at all. And if a robotic mission is not going to work, sending a human certainly won't. What are they going to do - push it with their arms?
When it is discovered, there will follow a final chorus of 'I told you so.'
- from the people who wanted to invest in robotic missions, because if we had done that, then the big rock could have easily been diverted using an advanced robotic mission.
Well, for now at least. But I guess that the idea of shooting a police officer gives you an erection - does it not? And the mention of the wife's ex-husband, do you feel a surge of pleasure in your genitals at the thought of pointing a gun at him? Does the idea of evening the odds make you want to masturbate?
And do you act out these fantasies? Do you seek out those special places on the web for people with your dark pleasures?
Do ever you post similar diatribes on facebook, blaming women for your loneliness and absent sex life? Ever talk about shooting up your school?
Works good for committing home intrusions, car jacking, keeping the ex-wifes husband away, and any previous criminal associates polite and on point. Not much different than rattlesnakes, skunks and badgers, nothing ever really changes.
Fixed.
The fact is I DO say anything I want to to anyone. I always have. I know you are itching to pull out the bit about shouting " fire" in a crowded theater, but that actually constitutes a criminal attack and not free speech at all.I do have free speech, how I use it is no different than how I use a car, a hammer or a weapon, all of which I am free to use as well.
Yes, you are a real law abiding thug aren't you. You didn't choose the whiteboy thuglife, the whiteboy thuglife chose you. You can say what you want, when you want - provided the what and when are on the list of permissable places and times set by the government. You're a real icon of liberty!
Knowing full well that police are just as able as any human to commit atrocities, they too may be put down. Granted, it may provide a sticky situation and legal entanglements, but in the right situation I would just as easily shoot a cop as a crackhead with a knife and bad intent.
Yes, I'm very turned on by your display of suburban badassery. You're the king of the thugs in my mind. Or perhaps you just look and sound like an idiot. Should I call you keazy? Are you gunna get your cinna on at the cinnabon?.
Being in the right,I would face a trial by a jury of my peers and be vindicated, so you can stuff your knee-jerk pissant talking points up your urethra.
If you self description is accurate your peers are going to be low order drug mules, prostitutes, drug addicts and/or thug wannabees with hoodies and chains on their wallets. Somehow I don't see them turning up to court (unless in the dock). Likely too moronic to find their way down the street.
Perhaps it would serve you better to know what the hell you are talking about before jealously rationalizing your impotence to demand your right from your own dictatorial government.
This from the guy who admitted freely that his firearm is useless for defending his liberty and in fact his main purpose for keeping it was to threaten others and fantasise about shooting cops. You'll excuse me if I'm not inclined to take civic lessons from you.
A right would be pointless if there were never an occasion to use it. So far the existence of the right has made an environment where its exercise has not yet been necessary.It serves the people well.
Sounds like someone sold you a rock that keeps bears away, and consequently you are sure that there can be no bears regardless of people pointing out bears on the street, in your garden, rifling through your trash.
I personally like living in a place where I can say what I choose, right or wrong, to anyone, anytime without fear of repercussions based on their office, class, religion, ethnicity and if there is; I can sue the pants off them in court and make a public spectacle of them. I notice this right gets plenty of exercise.
You can't say what you like, to anyone at anytime. You probably never had that right, you certainly don't now. You just choose a subset of topics to discuss, to a subset of people, in a subset of times and places. Your own personal 'Free Speech Zone'. You are deluding yourself. Wake Up!
And lastly can I just point out how useless your firearm is for defending your rights: If you point your firearm at an official or member of law enforcement, you will be arrested and thrown into prison. Most likely, you will go to prison for longer that *I* would, were I to do the same thing in Australia, because despite other insanities, our sentencing laws are sane and our judicial system relatively free from corruption, whereas yours is utterly insane and utterly corrupt, and if you go to prison in the US you will stay there, stuck in the system for the rest of your life. So - what's the use of your firearm? Who are you going to point it at - tyrannical rabbits?
Not sure why you decided to quote half a sentence, instead of the whole sentence, unless you wanted to burn a strawman by quoting me out of context to change the meaning of what I said. If you have some other intent, then I'm all ears.
What I said was:
To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.
This is in response to the OP's assertion that the boundaries of our push into space are actually defined by how far our physical bodies have travelled - which is an absurdity. To suggest that the discoveries of Voyager, Pioneer, Spirit and Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens are somehow trivial because they didn't happen to contain any meat is deeply insulting: insulting to us as humans. The presence of meat, or lack thereof is an arbitrary scale for judging achievement.
If you don't think this scale is arbitrary, if you don't think the O.P's comment was absurd, then explain why. Don't burn strawman.
It's not embarrassing to apply machines as all.... as you say,
I would like to fly to New York...
Or...
.
I would like to travel into space.
That's what I said.
The fact that we are ill adapted to survive in space should be no more of a justification that we shouldn't go there than the fact that we are unable to fly without machines should be a justification to never get into an aircraft.
That's what I said. Just because our physical limitations prevent us from bodily travelling any significant distance through space, doesn't mean that we should not go further than those physical limitations practically allow. We just need to accept that, like ploughing is best performed by machines, so travelling in space is best done by machines. Thus: the term "we travelled to Jupiter" or "we landed on Titan" does not imply that our physical bodies are located near Jupiter nor on Titan, anymore than saying "I ploughed my field" implies that I did so with your hands, or saying "I flew to New York" requires me to have flown there using my arms.
Really.... did I have to explain this twice?
You didn't need to explain it at all. I have a clear memory of what I said.
You complain about strawmen, then string together a strawman of your own. Nobody is suggesting that humans need to travel to Titan.
Except for the OP whose views you irrationally decided to defend, despite (apparently) not agreeing with them. Here the OP said (quote) The next manned lunar landing will not be so much for scientific exploration there as much as to start laying the foundations for stepping further into space. implying that our efforts stepping further into space: New Horizons, Voyager, Cassini Huygens, travelling to Pluto, Mercury, Jupiter, Titan - even to the edges of the solar system itself somehow don't count as "stepping into space". What an absurdity.
Your statement was absurd, and my parody illustrated it's absurdity. Our unsuitability to space is entirely irrelevant. You're right in pointing out that there are many aspects of space exploration which are best done by machines; you're completely wrong when you take that idea and present it as an absolute for why no human should ever go into space.
But who is suggesting that? Sounds to me like a subtle strawman. The distinction between a robot landing on Titan and a robot which contains a human is arbitrary.
Rather than focus on arbitrary distinctions, we ought to focus on non-arbitrary distinctions i.e. the gap in capability between human bodies and robots. In space, robots are far more capable than human bodies - to the extent that humans rely entirely on machines to survive.
I don't see why it's embarrassing or unsatisfactory to apply a machine to achieve a particular purpose e.g.
I need to plow my field,
I would like to fly to New York,
I need to write an essay
We use machines all the time. Therefore, why did we decide we needed to arbitrarily send human bodies into space, rather than use a machine to explore, unburdened by lumps of flesh? How would carting a lump of flesh to Titan, for example, have enabled Huygens to explore it more?
Actually, it's been the convention in Indo-European languages for a millennium or so; in fact, the structure of many of these allows for no other choice (Slavic languages, German, French etc.), and many English speakers - if not most - are L2 speakers for which this is the most compatible and the only natural alternative (the "uncanny valley" subproblem of interference in interlanguage fossilization).
Well, thanks for the history lesson, but the fact of the matter is, the use of "he" as the gender neutral pronoun fell out of common usage some time ago. Using it in a modern context or to refer to future events, creates a confusion : are you referring to a known male astronaut? Are you assuming that the astronaut will be male? Or are you (for whatever reason) using a language convention from prior the 1960's? English has always had a gender neutral pronoun (Churchyard et. al.) and therefore the use of the male pronoun to describe a person of undetermined gender was merely the convention for a number of years, until it became common practice and convention to use "they" in the singular, or other constructs.
As a bonus, with the rapidly increasing number of perceived and recognized psychological genders (not the linguistic ones) on the very short timescale of the few recent decades, there's no need to rewrite texts and textbooks (considering that the purpose of written texts is to span not only vast amounts of space but of time as well);
Get over it.
English is evolving, it always has. That's the nature of it, and indeed, one of the primary reasons why it has been so successful. If I read Shakespeare I see many conventions, words and artifacts which initially cause confusion until I read it in the context of the time - the same applies to Austen or Salinger. It has always been this way. Pronouns fall in and out of use: use of 'he' as the gender neutral pronoun is in the latter category.
one could easily argue that "improvements" of limited scope such as your "he or she", while attempting to sound inclusive (for whatever strange reason some people might perceive it that way) are, for example, distinctly interphobic - which, again, would be a social construct with limited longevity compared to the potential timelessness of any written text.
One could argue that, but not logically. The use of "they" as a singular, or "the astronaut" avoids confusion and doesn't require us to assign gender to someone who is not of that gender. It's not too hard: I notice you yourself in your reply referred to a person of undetermined gender (the offended/perceiving party above) in gender neutral terms without any loss of meaning or the need to adopt an awkward structure.
So humans won't be able to repair them, because you're not going to send them, and you're arguing the case for machines repairing themselves is equally bad? So what *is* your proposed solution? The "disposable camera" model? That really doesn't scale very well.
I'm arguing that we are always going to send a machine. The machine(s) will always be the larger part of what we send, whether it be a spacecraft designed to sustain humans for as long as possible in the vacuum of space, landing craft, spacesuits. So the choice is whether we send a human as well as the machine(s). Of this technology stack, the least reliable part is the human. So if we are going to be concerned about repairs, our first thought is - how repairable and reliable is the human? The answer is: Not very. Human bodies degenerate if left in low gravity for any period of time. They react badly to changes in pressure and have a narrow range of operating temperature. They need very specific fuels, which are bulky and cumbersome, and easily contaminated. Humans are social, and perform suboptimally outside of a social setting. They tend to change priorities based on feedback from the amygdala, leading to a lack of mission determinism.
I'm a speaker of an Indo-European language; do the math.
Alternatively, you could just clarify what you meant: maybe you didn't consider the possibility that the astronaut could be female or transgender. Or possibly you were using 'he' as the gender neutral pronoun - which hasn't been the convention in most english speaking countries for many years.
Regarding the rest, well, then replace the geologists with mission planners of any other kind, capable of deciding into which rock the machine should poke next time.
Or send a machine which avoids the need to choose which rock get's "poked".
Or devise a way to make the machines maintain themselves far away from Earth, because that's another thing humans would be able to provide on site and current technology doesn't.
Given the human body is notoriously unreliable and can only self repair minor injuries, I don't think the 'self repair' option is really viable either.
Except that you assume the geologist wouldn't have top-notch tools on his hands. Of course he would, just like the rover - but on top of that, he'd have his human brain on site, and not twenty minutes away. Gets even worse for outer planets.
He or she, I assume you mean.
In any case, I don't see why the brain would pose any advantage. Much of the geologists brain is taken up with irrelevant information - recipes, techniques for identifying a ripe rockmelon, political views, emotions concerning her family connections, etc. The learned geology is mostly useless and likely to be a liability: minerals on an asteroid haven't been through the same processes as minerals on earth so they aren't likely to be in a familiar pattern - even assuming the geologist can identify any familiar pattern with the sun casting deep contrast on the surface of the asteroid, or by the faint light of a headlight that fails to pierce the fogs of Titans deadly atmosphere. And then there is the amygdala - telling the geologist to run, when running on the surface of the asteroid would lead to certain death, or the image processing failing to pick up an obvious (but not visible) danger due to over-reliance on signals in the visible wavelength.
No, the brain is likely to be a liability in many circumstances. It is very good at what it does on earth - identifying dangers, abstracting things, feeling emotion, recalling and composing stories. But those earthly experiences will mostly not apply in the vacuum of space, making them a liability.
You should quit wanking on about how superior robots are at this job, and start doing up some calculations on the costs just to develop said robots. You will need a few engineers on your staff, so you can get cost estimates from them, and you'll need to factor in the costs of sending the robot to whichever target.
Meanwhile, sending humans requires us to also send the same number of robots - robots to scrub the atmosphere, robots to store and heat food, recycle human waste, coddle them and make sure they stay alive. The only really useless thing in the whole circus is the human.
e costs of developing the technology to build these superior robots. Research is not cheap and takes many, many years. We've got plenty of humans who'd be able to train up as geologists and then go do the job decades before your robots would be ready for their first Death Valley trials.
Decades sooner and billions of dollars cheaper. You just try teaching a robot how to be a good field geologist.
Well, that explains why robots are in space right now doing geology and humans have never left the gravity well of earth. Oh wait, no: it doesn't explain that at all.
Hate to be the one to tell you, but no matter how hard you flap your arms, you won't leave the ground. Machines can fly - humans can't. To suggest that we ought not take flight because of the physical limitations of our bodies is, indeed, absurd.
Will the robots become unreliable *before* reaching the (theoretically) superior autonomy of a human?
After all, what level of autonomy is actually optimal? We would not want the human to be moving about too much and possibly missing important details that would show up when using a more patient and obedient robot. Neither would we want the human to lie down and die because she/he feels sick or tired or depressed and overtaken by ennui. A level of limited autonomy seems the most practical.
Robots would exhibit limited autonomy have certainly been built on earth, suggesting they could well be developed for space, be more reliable than the (notoriously unreliable) human and transported to space for far less money.
A geologist would die within seconds in space -were it not for attendant machines keeping them alive. This is supposing we could identify the circumstance in which a geologist would indeed be "more capable" than a machine.
Asteroids, for example, have very low gravity due to their low mass. Humans tend to propel themselves by walking or otherwise pushing against the ground - this form of transportation would be sub-optimal to impossible on an asteroid. Secondly, the primary (only) method of scanning available for a human would be examining the surface by means of the eye. This, too is suboptimal for determining much at all about the composition of an asteroid. A machine which can move by other means and with multiple useful scanning devices built in would be much more capable of thoroughly exploring the asteroid. Same applies to the other interesting places in the solar system e.g. Europa or Titan. Neither have sufficient light or gravity for the native features of a human to outshine specially designed robots.
Except that it isn't. The moon is so close that none of the actual problems assoicated with human space travel even come into focus. And of course, it is not 'pushing further into space'. We've been to the edge of the solar system, we've visited comets, plunged into the icy atmosphere of Titan.
By us, of course I mean our machines, not physical humans - the distinction between abstracting 'our' presence via a machine or by the physical presence of a bunch of humans we've never met and are not related to us is purely arbitrary. What makes humans distinct from other creatures is that we can abstract our intent into machines that fulfill that intent: ploughs, swords, trains, coaches, treaties, man pages, computers, space probes. We are not limited by the limitations of our physical bodies.
To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.
Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.
I note that you did not provide the link. If you lack the intellectual honesty necessary to do as you agreed and suffer the consequences of making assertions that you can't prove (and are in fact, trivially disproved) - if you lack that intellectual honesty, then further discussion is likely to be unproductive.
[no response]
Provide the citation as agreed.
Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:
I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements.
You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.
A "yes" (please test my assertion) or "no" (don't test my assertion, I withdraw it) will suffice. There isn't any negotiation. You have nothing I want.
[no response]
Provide the response as specified
So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.
[no answer]
Do you agree with this remark from your cited source, or not (i.e you repudiate your source)?
[no response]
Provide the response as specified
To quote from said paper [cited by you]:
The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.
and:
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).
The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause.
This is the paper you cited. This is the paper you cited, directly contradicting your claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. It is not trying to explain the pause, it debunks the notion of a 17 year pause. *facepalm*
[no response]
Provide the explanation to this inconsistency.
SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temp
Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.
I note that you did not provide the link. If you lack the intellectual honesty necessary to do as you agreed and suffer the consequences of making assertions that you can't prove (and are in fact, trivially disproved) - if you lack that intellectual honesty, then further discussion is likely to be unproductive.
Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:
I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements.
You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.
A "yes" (please test my assertion) or "no" (don't test my assertion, I withdraw it) will suffice. There isn't any negotiation. You have nothing I want.
So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.
[no answer]
Do you agree with this remark from your cited source, or not (i.e you repudiate your source)?
To quote from said paper [cited by you]:
The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.
and:
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).
The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause.
This is the paper you cited. This is the paper you cited, directly contradicting your claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. It is not trying to explain the pause, it debunks the notion of a 17 year pause. *facepalm*
SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temperature data, right? You will say anything that you think strengthens your position, and deny the blatantly obvious when it appears to weaken your position. You are now suggesting the Journal Nature is not trustworthy. It is interesting to watch the "pro-science" side throw scientific journals under the bus when the facts don't support their positions.
You are flailing around without a clue. You have no shame and will just say anything, no matter how baseless, no matter how nonsensical. It would be fun to watch if it wasn't so embarrassing.
Well, you are right about one thing - you ought to be embarrassed. You b rought that embarrassment upon yourself.
Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.
Here the link to the code they released. [dropbox.com] They made it available to Zeke Hausfather [yaleclimat...ctions.org] who made it available to everyone else.
Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:
I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements.
You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.
Do we have a deal?
Regarding the 17 year "plateau" that you deny, apparently you can't interpret a graph [woodfortrees.org], don't know what 'statistical significance' means, and Nature [nature.com] isn't good enough for you either.
So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source:
Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.
Well, thanks for just making stuff up. Are you actually going to attempt to justify your statement There has been no warming for 17 years? Not that I should have to tell you what to do, but you might progress along this path if you cite a scientific paper which says this. (i.e 1996-2013)
Right off the top of my head, here's a paper [that details and proves a 17 year period (1996-2013) of no warming]
To quote from said paper:
The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.
and:
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).
Cherry picking.... that would be what YOU are doing, would it not?
Is seems the paper you cite says in fact the opposite of what you assert, and is, in fact, saying exactly what I thought when this conversation started! How about that! You've made no ground in your efforts to convince me that global warming is a scam, and if anything, the links provided confirm the consensus position.
You're a failure.
I've provided links directly to the temperature data
Cite yourself providing links directly to the temperature data.
So, let's be clear. You are saying that if I look, I will not find a methodology for the homogenisation of longitudinal temperature data (i.e. USHCN v2.0 or v2.5 and GHCN) published prior to July 8th 2014?
My time is important. What should be my motivation for spending the time to look: Let's say, if I find a methodology, you will issue the following statement: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false.
Now, where would be an appropriate place for your retraction? I suggest:
(1) On your blog
(2) That if you ever choose to post here again on a climate related topic, your remarks should start with this disclaimer.
The temperature is always fluctuating. Four hundredths of a single degree over a 10 year period is next to nothing, and is well within the margin of uncertainty. But your logic I could claim it has been cooling since 2001. The models predicted 2 tenths of a degree warming per decade.
Well, thanks for just making stuff up. Are you actually going to attempt to justify your statement There has been no warming for 17 years? Not that I should have to tell you what to do, but you might progress along this path if you cite a scientific paper which says this. (i.e 1996-2013) Don't imagine that you can bedazzle me with figures that you plucked out of your arse, mixed together with flawed methodology and then shaped into a cake for consumption, I'm not eating it. I don't accept assertions and distortions as proof. Cite.
The IPCC report says that AGW is repsonsible for 50%+ of warming since 1950, at 95% certainty. I don't know why Stocker is misrepresenting it, maybe you should ask him. Go read the report for yourself. It's easy to try to change history after predictions fail.
So to summarise: the source you relied upon for your statement: there has been no warming for 17 years is in fact misrepresenting the facts. Got it.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say everyone goes to Mars. Just enough to get a sustainable population of people to sit around looking smug. The vast majority of humans on earth will still die off - a few in the impact event, a lot more in the collapse of agriculture that follows. It'll take centuries to rebuild.
Yes. A plan which involves billions of people dying unnecessarily seems, well, not like a good plan. Good thing that nobody would ever agree to such an insane plan.
Or do you want the real reason?
I'd like a real reason, but I'm not holding my breath.
Because it's there.
That's not a reason. That's like saying: "We should build a popsicle skyscraper - because we can!" It's nonsense.
ook at what has come about in previous ages of exploration - social experiments, new models of society. There's no land left on this planet worth settling.
The last real attempt at settlement was Greenland and prior to that 10000 years or more ago. On what are you basing your assertion that this was an a time of social expansion (more than say, the Enlightment, or Pax Romana)?
Basically, we're screwed
No, we're not.
There has only been one significant imapct event in the Earth's history, which is the one that created the moon. The rest have ben relatively minor - a danger for life at the time, but not dangerous to us, with our ability to adapt, tunnel and otherwise mitigate the dangers associated with abrupt climate change. At no point since the moon calved off has the earth been less habitable than mars.
And as time passes the danger of imapct diminishes, since Jupiter is doing a great job sweeping the inner solar system clean of likely debris - thanks big guy! The sun is now middle aged - chances are we will never be hit by anything likely to make us extinct.
Better to go colonise Mars while we can, or else set up some long-term bunkers deep underground with enough food supplies and nuclear-powered grow-lights to last until the atmosphere clears.
Well, we don't have lift capacity to lift 9 billion or so humans, plus all the other life forms to Mars - plus the obvious disadvantage that if we move there, we can never come back, and even on the worst day the Earth is more habitable than Mars will ever be. So the other option is looking like the viable one.
Well, you certainly wouldn't try a nuclear bomb, that would hardly have any delta V at all. And if a robotic mission is not going to work, sending a human certainly won't. What are they going to do - push it with their arms?
When it is discovered, there will follow a final chorus of 'I told you so.'
- from the people who wanted to invest in robotic missions, because if we had done that, then the big rock could have easily been diverted using an advanced robotic mission.
Yes, as a matter of fact I am law abiding.
Well, for now at least. But I guess that the idea of shooting a police officer gives you an erection - does it not? And the mention of the wife's ex-husband, do you feel a surge of pleasure in your genitals at the thought of pointing a gun at him? Does the idea of evening the odds make you want to masturbate?
And do you act out these fantasies? Do you seek out those special places on the web for people with your dark pleasures?
Do ever you post similar diatribes on facebook, blaming women for your loneliness and absent sex life? Ever talk about shooting up your school?
Works good for committing home intrusions, car jacking, keeping the ex-wifes husband away, and any previous criminal associates polite and on point. Not much different than rattlesnakes, skunks and badgers, nothing ever really changes.
Fixed.
The fact is I DO say anything I want to to anyone. I always have. I know you are itching to pull out the bit about shouting " fire" in a crowded theater, but that actually constitutes a criminal attack and not free speech at all.I do have free speech, how I use it is no different than how I use a car, a hammer or a weapon, all of which I am free to use as well.
Yes, you are a real law abiding thug aren't you. You didn't choose the whiteboy thuglife, the whiteboy thuglife chose you. You can say what you want, when you want - provided the what and when are on the list of permissable places and times set by the government. You're a real icon of liberty!
Knowing full well that police are just as able as any human to commit atrocities, they too may be put down. Granted, it may provide a sticky situation and legal entanglements, but in the right situation I would just as easily shoot a cop as a crackhead with a knife and bad intent.
Yes, I'm very turned on by your display of suburban badassery. You're the king of the thugs in my mind. Or perhaps you just look and sound like an idiot. Should I call you keazy? Are you gunna get your cinna on at the cinnabon?.
Being in the right ,I would face a trial by a jury of my peers and be vindicated, so you can stuff your knee-jerk pissant talking points up your urethra.
If you self description is accurate your peers are going to be low order drug mules, prostitutes, drug addicts and/or thug wannabees with hoodies and chains on their wallets. Somehow I don't see them turning up to court (unless in the dock). Likely too moronic to find their way down the street.
Perhaps it would serve you better to know what the hell you are talking about before jealously rationalizing your impotence to demand your right from your own dictatorial government.
This from the guy who admitted freely that his firearm is useless for defending his liberty and in fact his main purpose for keeping it was to threaten others and fantasise about shooting cops. You'll excuse me if I'm not inclined to take civic lessons from you.
A right would be pointless if there were never an occasion to use it. So far the existence of the right has made an environment where its exercise has not yet been necessary.It serves the people well.
Sounds like someone sold you a rock that keeps bears away, and consequently you are sure that there can be no bears regardless of people pointing out bears on the street, in your garden, rifling through your trash.
I personally like living in a place where I can say what I choose, right or wrong, to anyone, anytime without fear of repercussions based on their office, class, religion, ethnicity and if there is; I can sue the pants off them in court and make a public spectacle of them. I notice this right gets plenty of exercise.
You can't say what you like, to anyone at anytime. You probably never had that right, you certainly don't now. You just choose a subset of topics to discuss, to a subset of people, in a subset of times and places. Your own personal 'Free Speech Zone'. You are deluding yourself. Wake Up!
And lastly can I just point out how useless your firearm is for defending your rights: If you point your firearm at an official or member of law enforcement, you will be arrested and thrown into prison. Most likely, you will go to prison for longer that *I* would, were I to do the same thing in Australia, because despite other insanities, our sentencing laws are sane and our judicial system relatively free from corruption, whereas yours is utterly insane and utterly corrupt, and if you go to prison in the US you will stay there, stuck in the system for the rest of your life. So - what's the use of your firearm? Who are you going to point it at - tyrannical rabbits?
In what other ways are we assuming alien life is like us?
What I said was:
To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.
This is in response to the OP's assertion that the boundaries of our push into space are actually defined by how far our physical bodies have travelled - which is an absurdity. To suggest that the discoveries of Voyager, Pioneer, Spirit and Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens are somehow trivial because they didn't happen to contain any meat is deeply insulting: insulting to us as humans. The presence of meat, or lack thereof is an arbitrary scale for judging achievement. If you don't think this scale is arbitrary, if you don't think the O.P's comment was absurd, then explain why. Don't burn strawman.
It's not embarrassing to apply machines as all.... as you say,
I would like to fly to New York...
Or...
.
I would like to travel into space.
That's what I said.
The fact that we are ill adapted to survive in space should be no more of a justification that we shouldn't go there than the fact that we are unable to fly without machines should be a justification to never get into an aircraft.
That's what I said. Just because our physical limitations prevent us from bodily travelling any significant distance through space, doesn't mean that we should not go further than those physical limitations practically allow. We just need to accept that, like ploughing is best performed by machines, so travelling in space is best done by machines. Thus: the term "we travelled to Jupiter" or "we landed on Titan" does not imply that our physical bodies are located near Jupiter nor on Titan, anymore than saying "I ploughed my field" implies that I did so with your hands, or saying "I flew to New York" requires me to have flown there using my arms.
Really.... did I have to explain this twice?
You didn't need to explain it at all. I have a clear memory of what I said.
You complain about strawmen, then string together a strawman of your own. Nobody is suggesting that humans need to travel to Titan.
Except for the OP whose views you irrationally decided to defend, despite (apparently) not agreeing with them. Here the OP said (quote) The next manned lunar landing will not be so much for scientific exploration there as much as to start laying the foundations for stepping further into space. implying that our efforts stepping further into space: New Horizons, Voyager, Cassini Huygens, travelling to Pluto, Mercury, Jupiter, Titan - even to the edges of the solar system itself somehow don't count as "stepping into space". What an absurdity.
Your statement was absurd, and my parody illustrated it's absurdity. Our unsuitability to space is entirely irrelevant. You're right in pointing out that there are many aspects of space exploration which are best done by machines; you're completely wrong when you take that idea and present it as an absolute for why no human should ever go into space.
Thanks again for burning the strawman.
Rather than focus on arbitrary distinctions, we ought to focus on non-arbitrary distinctions i.e. the gap in capability between human bodies and robots. In space, robots are far more capable than human bodies - to the extent that humans rely entirely on machines to survive.
I don't see why it's embarrassing or unsatisfactory to apply a machine to achieve a particular purpose e.g.
I need to plow my field,
I would like to fly to New York,
I need to write an essay
We use machines all the time. Therefore, why did we decide we needed to arbitrarily send human bodies into space, rather than use a machine to explore, unburdened by lumps of flesh? How would carting a lump of flesh to Titan, for example, have enabled Huygens to explore it more?
Actually, it's been the convention in Indo-European languages for a millennium or so; in fact, the structure of many of these allows for no other choice (Slavic languages, German, French etc.), and many English speakers - if not most - are L2 speakers for which this is the most compatible and the only natural alternative (the "uncanny valley" subproblem of interference in interlanguage fossilization).
Well, thanks for the history lesson, but the fact of the matter is, the use of "he" as the gender neutral pronoun fell out of common usage some time ago. Using it in a modern context or to refer to future events, creates a confusion : are you referring to a known male astronaut? Are you assuming that the astronaut will be male? Or are you (for whatever reason) using a language convention from prior the 1960's? English has always had a gender neutral pronoun (Churchyard et. al.) and therefore the use of the male pronoun to describe a person of undetermined gender was merely the convention for a number of years, until it became common practice and convention to use "they" in the singular, or other constructs.
As a bonus, with the rapidly increasing number of perceived and recognized psychological genders (not the linguistic ones) on the very short timescale of the few recent decades, there's no need to rewrite texts and textbooks (considering that the purpose of written texts is to span not only vast amounts of space but of time as well);
Get over it.
English is evolving, it always has. That's the nature of it, and indeed, one of the primary reasons why it has been so successful. If I read Shakespeare I see many conventions, words and artifacts which initially cause confusion until I read it in the context of the time - the same applies to Austen or Salinger. It has always been this way. Pronouns fall in and out of use: use of 'he' as the gender neutral pronoun is in the latter category.
one could easily argue that "improvements" of limited scope such as your "he or she", while attempting to sound inclusive (for whatever strange reason some people might perceive it that way) are, for example, distinctly interphobic - which, again, would be a social construct with limited longevity compared to the potential timelessness of any written text.
One could argue that, but not logically. The use of "they" as a singular, or "the astronaut" avoids confusion and doesn't require us to assign gender to someone who is not of that gender. It's not too hard: I notice you yourself in your reply referred to a person of undetermined gender (the offended/perceiving party above) in gender neutral terms without any loss of meaning or the need to adopt an awkward structure.
So humans won't be able to repair them, because you're not going to send them, and you're arguing the case for machines repairing themselves is equally bad? So what *is* your proposed solution? The "disposable camera" model? That really doesn't scale very well.
I'm arguing that we are always going to send a machine. The machine(s) will always be the larger part of what we send, whether it be a spacecraft designed to sustain humans for as long as possible in the vacuum of space, landing craft, spacesuits. So the choice is whether we send a human as well as the machine(s). Of this technology stack, the least reliable part is the human. So if we are going to be concerned about repairs, our first thought is - how repairable and reliable is the human? The answer is: Not very. Human bodies degenerate if left in low gravity for any period of time. They react badly to changes in pressure and have a narrow range of operating temperature. They need very specific fuels, which are bulky and cumbersome, and easily contaminated. Humans are social, and perform suboptimally outside of a social setting. They tend to change priorities based on feedback from the amygdala, leading to a lack of mission determinism.
Comp
I'm a speaker of an Indo-European language; do the math.
Alternatively, you could just clarify what you meant: maybe you didn't consider the possibility that the astronaut could be female or transgender. Or possibly you were using 'he' as the gender neutral pronoun - which hasn't been the convention in most english speaking countries for many years.
Regarding the rest, well, then replace the geologists with mission planners of any other kind, capable of deciding into which rock the machine should poke next time.
Or send a machine which avoids the need to choose which rock get's "poked".
Or devise a way to make the machines maintain themselves far away from Earth, because that's another thing humans would be able to provide on site and current technology doesn't.
Given the human body is notoriously unreliable and can only self repair minor injuries, I don't think the 'self repair' option is really viable either.
Except that you assume the geologist wouldn't have top-notch tools on his hands. Of course he would, just like the rover - but on top of that, he'd have his human brain on site, and not twenty minutes away. Gets even worse for outer planets.
He or she, I assume you mean.
In any case, I don't see why the brain would pose any advantage. Much of the geologists brain is taken up with irrelevant information - recipes, techniques for identifying a ripe rockmelon, political views, emotions concerning her family connections, etc. The learned geology is mostly useless and likely to be a liability: minerals on an asteroid haven't been through the same processes as minerals on earth so they aren't likely to be in a familiar pattern - even assuming the geologist can identify any familiar pattern with the sun casting deep contrast on the surface of the asteroid, or by the faint light of a headlight that fails to pierce the fogs of Titans deadly atmosphere. And then there is the amygdala - telling the geologist to run, when running on the surface of the asteroid would lead to certain death, or the image processing failing to pick up an obvious (but not visible) danger due to over-reliance on signals in the visible wavelength.
No, the brain is likely to be a liability in many circumstances. It is very good at what it does on earth - identifying dangers, abstracting things, feeling emotion, recalling and composing stories. But those earthly experiences will mostly not apply in the vacuum of space, making them a liability.
You should quit wanking on about how superior robots are at this job, and start doing up some calculations on the costs just to develop said robots. You will need a few engineers on your staff, so you can get cost estimates from them, and you'll need to factor in the costs of sending the robot to whichever target.
Meanwhile, sending humans requires us to also send the same number of robots - robots to scrub the atmosphere, robots to store and heat food, recycle human waste, coddle them and make sure they stay alive. The only really useless thing in the whole circus is the human.
e costs of developing the technology to build these superior robots. Research is not cheap and takes many, many years. We've got plenty of humans who'd be able to train up as geologists and then go do the job decades before your robots would be ready for their first Death Valley trials.
Decades sooner and billions of dollars cheaper. You just try teaching a robot how to be a good field geologist.
Well, that explains why robots are in space right now doing geology and humans have never left the gravity well of earth. Oh wait, no: it doesn't explain that at all.
I'm not ure taking ones helmet off to lick a rock is a good strategy in the vacuum of space.
Hate to be the one to tell you, but no matter how hard you flap your arms, you won't leave the ground. Machines can fly - humans can't. To suggest that we ought not take flight because of the physical limitations of our bodies is, indeed, absurd.
After all, what level of autonomy is actually optimal? We would not want the human to be moving about too much and possibly missing important details that would show up when using a more patient and obedient robot. Neither would we want the human to lie down and die because she/he feels sick or tired or depressed and overtaken by ennui. A level of limited autonomy seems the most practical.
Robots would exhibit limited autonomy have certainly been built on earth, suggesting they could well be developed for space, be more reliable than the (notoriously unreliable) human and transported to space for far less money.
Asteroids, for example, have very low gravity due to their low mass. Humans tend to propel themselves by walking or otherwise pushing against the ground - this form of transportation would be sub-optimal to impossible on an asteroid. Secondly, the primary (only) method of scanning available for a human would be examining the surface by means of the eye. This, too is suboptimal for determining much at all about the composition of an asteroid. A machine which can move by other means and with multiple useful scanning devices built in would be much more capable of thoroughly exploring the asteroid. Same applies to the other interesting places in the solar system e.g. Europa or Titan. Neither have sufficient light or gravity for the native features of a human to outshine specially designed robots.
By us, of course I mean our machines, not physical humans - the distinction between abstracting 'our' presence via a machine or by the physical presence of a bunch of humans we've never met and are not related to us is purely arbitrary. What makes humans distinct from other creatures is that we can abstract our intent into machines that fulfill that intent: ploughs, swords, trains, coaches, treaties, man pages, computers, space probes. We are not limited by the limitations of our physical bodies.
To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.
Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.
I note that you did not provide the link. If you lack the intellectual honesty necessary to do as you agreed and suffer the consequences of making assertions that you can't prove (and are in fact, trivially disproved) - if you lack that intellectual honesty, then further discussion is likely to be unproductive.
[no response]
Provide the citation as agreed.
Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:
I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements.
You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.
A "yes" (please test my assertion) or "no" (don't test my assertion, I withdraw it) will suffice. There isn't any negotiation. You have nothing I want.
[no response]
Provide the response as specified
So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.
[no answer]
Do you agree with this remark from your cited source, or not (i.e you repudiate your source)?
[no response]
Provide the response as specified
To quote from said paper [cited by you]:
The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.
and:
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).
The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause.
This is the paper you cited. This is the paper you cited, directly contradicting your claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. It is not trying to explain the pause, it debunks the notion of a 17 year pause. *facepalm*
[no response]
Provide the explanation to this inconsistency.
SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temp
Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.
I note that you did not provide the link. If you lack the intellectual honesty necessary to do as you agreed and suffer the consequences of making assertions that you can't prove (and are in fact, trivially disproved) - if you lack that intellectual honesty, then further discussion is likely to be unproductive.
Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:
I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements.
You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.
A "yes" (please test my assertion) or "no" (don't test my assertion, I withdraw it) will suffice. There isn't any negotiation. You have nothing I want.
So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.
[no answer]
Do you agree with this remark from your cited source, or not (i.e you repudiate your source)?
To quote from said paper [cited by you]:
The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.
and:
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).
The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause.
This is the paper you cited. This is the paper you cited, directly contradicting your claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. It is not trying to explain the pause, it debunks the notion of a 17 year pause. *facepalm*
SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temperature data, right? You will say anything that you think strengthens your position, and deny the blatantly obvious when it appears to weaken your position. You are now suggesting the Journal Nature is not trustworthy. It is interesting to watch the "pro-science" side throw scientific journals under the bus when the facts don't support their positions.
This is the link you are referring to, correct?
You are flailing around without a clue. You have no shame and will just say anything, no matter how baseless, no matter how nonsensical. It would be fun to watch if it wasn't so embarrassing.
Well, you are right about one thing - you ought to be embarrassed. You b rought that embarrassment upon yourself. Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.
Here the link to the code they released. [dropbox.com] They made it available to Zeke Hausfather [yaleclimat...ctions.org] who made it available to everyone else.
Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:
I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements. You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.
Do we have a deal?
Regarding the 17 year "plateau" that you deny, apparently you can't interpret a graph [woodfortrees.org], don't know what 'statistical significance' means, and Nature [nature.com] isn't good enough for you either.
So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.
Well, thanks for just making stuff up. Are you actually going to attempt to justify your statement There has been no warming for 17 years? Not that I should have to tell you what to do, but you might progress along this path if you cite a scientific paper which says this. (i.e 1996-2013)
Right off the top of my head, here's a paper [that details and proves a 17 year period (1996-2013) of no warming]
To quote from said paper:
The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.
and:
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6). Cherry picking.... that would be what YOU are doing, would it not?
Is seems the paper you cite says in fact the opposite of what you assert, and is, in fact, saying exactly what I thought when this conversation started! How about that! You've made no ground in your efforts to convince me that global warming is a scam, and if anything, the links provided confirm the consensus position.
You're a failure.
I've provided links directly to the temperature data
Cite yourself providing links directly to the temperature data.
yet you bzzzzt
Nope, don't care what you think.
So, let's be clear. You are saying that if I look, I will not find a methodology for the homogenisation of longitudinal temperature data (i.e. USHCN v2.0 or v2.5 and GHCN) published prior to July 8th 2014?
My time is important. What should be my motivation for spending the time to look: Let's say, if I find a methodology, you will issue the following statement: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false.
Deal?
Have fun looking for that code.
I take that as a yes.
USHCN methodology Last updated Oct 2013
GHCN methodologyLast updated 2009
Total time less than 5 minutes.
Now, where would be an appropriate place for your retraction? I suggest:
(1) On your blog
(2) That if you ever choose to post here again on a climate related topic, your remarks should start with this disclaimer.
The temperature is always fluctuating. Four hundredths of a single degree over a 10 year period is next to nothing, and is well within the margin of uncertainty. But your logic I could claim it has been cooling since 2001. The models predicted 2 tenths of a degree warming per decade.
Well, thanks for just making stuff up. Are you actually going to attempt to justify your statement There has been no warming for 17 years? Not that I should have to tell you what to do, but you might progress along this path if you cite a scientific paper which says this. (i.e 1996-2013) Don't imagine that you can bedazzle me with figures that you plucked out of your arse, mixed together with flawed methodology and then shaped into a cake for consumption, I'm not eating it. I don't accept assertions and distortions as proof. Cite.
The IPCC report says that AGW is repsonsible for 50%+ of warming since 1950, at 95% certainty. I don't know why Stocker is misrepresenting it, maybe you should ask him. Go read the report for yourself. It's easy to try to change history after predictions fail.
So to summarise: the source you relied upon for your statement: there has been no warming for 17 years is in fact misrepresenting the facts. Got it.
You seem angry btw.