How about a quote from the interview: "I was actually surprised about how much the scientific community knows about the history of climate change, and how little it knows about the future of climate change, and how hard it is to make these links with with anything close to the level of certainty policy makers and funders would like. The planet is so complex, and so fragile in many ways, that it becomes very hard to understand how everything will interact as the weather changes. More to the point, we don't really know how climate change will play out in specific regions, and that's actually the data we most need to make decisions about what to do."
So at least he is realistic about the quality of the science.
In much of Australia, the sun shines a lot and much of the electricity demand is for cooling. With very low population densities solar can make sense.
Solar is not so competitive in cold clouded places. In Finland or the north of Scotland, hydro power is cheap, in Iceland geothermal enegy makes sense. Wind can be less expensive in some places. In big cities, waste combustion is economic. Each to their own.
No doubt you have been convinced by Pascal's Wager to believe in God.
But the real issues with global warming are:
Is it happening?
Are the effects substantial?
Can we do something about it? Or is it already too big or too late?
Would it be cheaper to go for prevention, or to meet the cost of living with the consequences?
For those who think that the cuts in CO2 are the equivalent of closing down the world's industry, energy and transport systems, building higher sea-walls might be a better option: it is a process which can be stopped if global warming turns out to be a less serious issue than predicted.
5% is not very much in one year. "Virus code will double in 14 years" does not make much of a stunning headline compared with Moore's Law or spam rates of increase.
It suggests that anti-virus programs should be able to cope (if people bothered to use them).
More than one slick website. Looking up dihydrogen monoxide suggests that it widely recognized as a danger. Only Urban Legends and the Recreation > Humor > Science > Chemistry directory spoils the effect.
The car industry provides two areas of profit (and one of loss)
1. Making and selling the car - a loss
2. Financing the sale of a car - a profit
3. Servicing and repairing the car - a profit
Finance is a competitive industry, so the profits are small. Servicing can be turned into a monopoly, so is it any surprise the car makers are doing so?
Politicians know how to shakedown an industry - threatening to regulate it and forcing competition is not uncommon. For some as yet unknown reason, the threats are not always carried out.
"I think the founders never intended Congress to pass unconstitutional bills."
It looks as if they fully expected Congress to do so - hence the checks and balances of the Constitution, the Presidential veto and the Supreme Court. Otherwise they could adopted the British concept of Parliamentary sovereignty.
freaks who won't let their kids watch Scoobie-doo because it's got ghosts in it
When I was young many decades ago all the ghosts, monsters etc. in Scoobie-doo were fake. Now only half of them are, so the message to kids is confused. The old episodes were funnier too - try them.
... species by the thousands go extinct...
It's difficult to trat the newspaper headlines "Global Warming to kill off 1m species" or "1 in 10 animals and plants extinct by 2050" seriously when the original Nature article starts:
"Climate change over the past 30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has been implicated in one species-level extinction."
This suggests that there is something implausible going on. There seem to be five possibilities at least:
* The input data for the paper is overly negative
* The mathematical model used is dubious
* The extrapolation from the 1000 species studied to the whole planet is unjustified
* When the headlines talk about extinction, they mean a reduction in population size
* Climate change has not really happened yet.
This 2001 paper suggests that about three silicon atoms fit into an nanometre and that they could space "bumps" at 38 nanometres. But that was a long time ago.
The McDonalds coffee was not 180C. It was 180F (82C). Enough to burn, but not enough to boil. If it had been freshly brewed tea, it should have been hotter.
Superheated water in microwave ovens is another threat.
There is no formal difference. But some people use enquiry for a simple question, and inquiry for a formal investigation: "He enquired where the Inquiry was being held."
However, if I had to pay all of their court costs, then they would be motivated to only settle if it was indeed their fault (because not only do they pay the 20k, they also pay my court costs).
The calculation is rather more complicated than that. They need to balance the ratio of the settlement cost and the sum of their costs, your costs and court-ordered compensation cost (plus any adverse publicity) against the probability that you will win. You can sometimes push your costs up by taking out insurance against losing, if the court thinks such a practice is reasonable. You can certainly threaten to spend more on a case taken to court than they expect. You can also push up the likelihood of settlement by appearing to be unable to be able to meet their costs at the end of the case should you lose. And if their costs are already more than you can afford, then it becomes insane not to appeal any decision, since you still have a small chance of coming out of the process with your full costs paid.
So having "costs with cause" is not always the solution.
The original 1998 paper by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes was not in error. McIntyre and McKitrick screwed up their data when they published this paper. Somebody exported the raw data in the original paper to Excel but somehow exported 159 columns of data into a 112 column spreadsheet.
It is a pity that the original MBH paper you link to states (page 1 top right) "112 indicators back to 1820" and (page 3 middle right) "the reconstructions from 1820 onwards based on the full
multiproxy network of 112 indicators". 159 does not appear in the paper except in the date 1599.
This makes the case nicely for taking the number you think of first, and then doubling it. In this case the requirement was for 20 feet of landslip, and in the event there was 18 feet of slip - above average but below the maximum.
But as the article says: Though there was minimal damage, the earthquake may have one potentially expensive effect: the pipeline is now out of compliance with original design criteria that require it to be able to survive 20 feet of horizontal motion.
Perhaps next time they will specify 20 feet as the safety requirement, but build to allow 40 feet, so that they do not have to rebuild after every landslip.
BG We've had 12 things in about an eight month period in Windows Server 2003 and with the equivalent level of attack in the previous generation we would have had over 100. We had 43, but adjusting for the level of intensity it's a factor of 10 difference.
This is not clear, but seems to suggest (a) he thinks that 100/12 is close to 10; (b) he thinks there are 57 (TM Heinz) or more vunerabilities yet to be found in XP but the intensity of attack has not been high enough yet.
Slashdot Mirror
So at least he is realistic about the quality of the science.
Solar is not so competitive in cold clouded places. In Finland or the north of Scotland, hydro power is cheap, in Iceland geothermal enegy makes sense. Wind can be less expensive in some places. In big cities, waste combustion is economic. Each to their own.
Hell (Auckland) works for me with Windows 2000, MSIE 6.0 and Flash version 6.0.79.0.
419 is part of the Nigerian criminal code
But the real issues with global warming are:
Is it happening?
Are the effects substantial?
Can we do something about it? Or is it already too big or too late?
Would it be cheaper to go for prevention, or to meet the cost of living with the consequences?
For those who think that the cuts in CO2 are the equivalent of closing down the world's industry, energy and transport systems, building higher sea-walls might be a better option: it is a process which can be stopped if global warming turns out to be a less serious issue than predicted.
It suggests that anti-virus programs should be able to cope (if people bothered to use them).
More than one slick website. Looking up dihydrogen monoxide suggests that it widely recognized as a danger. Only Urban Legends and the Recreation > Humor > Science > Chemistry directory spoils the effect.
The car industry provides two areas of profit (and one of loss) 1. Making and selling the car - a loss 2. Financing the sale of a car - a profit 3. Servicing and repairing the car - a profit Finance is a competitive industry, so the profits are small. Servicing can be turned into a monopoly, so is it any surprise the car makers are doing so? Politicians know how to shakedown an industry - threatening to regulate it and forcing competition is not uncommon. For some as yet unknown reason, the threats are not always carried out.
It looks as if they fully expected Congress to do so - hence the checks and balances of the Constitution, the Presidential veto and the Supreme Court. Otherwise they could adopted the British concept of Parliamentary sovereignty.
When I was young many decades ago all the ghosts, monsters etc. in Scoobie-doo were fake. Now only half of them are, so the message to kids is confused. The old episodes were funnier too - try them.
In the UK, the loser would have the right to go to court and ask for (and probably get) a new election. It happend in Winchester in 1997.
"Climate change over the past 30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has been implicated in one species-level extinction."
This suggests that there is something implausible going on. There seem to be five possibilities at least:
* The input data for the paper is overly negative
* The mathematical model used is dubious
* The extrapolation from the 1000 species studied to the whole planet is unjustified
* When the headlines talk about extinction, they mean a reduction in population size
* Climate change has not really happened yet.
Jaguar is owned by Ford. But MG Rover is British.
It all seems a little complex. Why not broadband video over IP (with on/off switches at both ends)?
This 2001 paper suggests that about three silicon atoms fit into an nanometre and that they could space "bumps" at 38 nanometres. But that was a long time ago.
Superheated water in microwave ovens is another threat.
A square rather than a rectangle. There are a lot of 6*24 rectangles not in this list, and perhaps some other shapes.
There is no formal difference. But some people use enquiry for a simple question, and inquiry for a formal investigation: "He enquired where the Inquiry was being held."
The calculation is rather more complicated than that. They need to balance the ratio of the settlement cost and the sum of their costs, your costs and court-ordered compensation cost (plus any adverse publicity) against the probability that you will win. You can sometimes push your costs up by taking out insurance against losing, if the court thinks such a practice is reasonable. You can certainly threaten to spend more on a case taken to court than they expect. You can also push up the likelihood of settlement by appearing to be unable to be able to meet their costs at the end of the case should you lose. And if their costs are already more than you can afford, then it becomes insane not to appeal any decision, since you still have a small chance of coming out of the process with your full costs paid.
So having "costs with cause" is not always the solution.
The first case has filings something like:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.
while the second has something like:
1, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc.
to give a cumulative total of
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.
HTML is ASCII, plus some ASCII tags.
My point was that 112 did appear twice but 159 did not appear.
It is a pity that the original MBH paper you link to states (page 1 top right) "112 indicators back to 1820" and (page 3 middle right) "the reconstructions from 1820 onwards based on the full multiproxy network of 112 indicators". 159 does not appear in the paper except in the date 1599.
But as the article says: Though there was minimal damage, the earthquake may have one potentially expensive effect: the pipeline is now out of compliance with original design criteria that require it to be able to survive 20 feet of horizontal motion.
Perhaps next time they will specify 20 feet as the safety requirement, but build to allow 40 feet, so that they do not have to rebuild after every landslip.
This is not clear, but seems to suggest
(a) he thinks that 100/12 is close to 10;
(b) he thinks there are 57 (TM Heinz) or more vunerabilities yet to be found in XP but the intensity of attack has not been high enough yet.