Not so; Pasteur was not entirely correct. Lawyers spontaneously generate out of the muck. (That's why muck-rackers so frequently have lawyers around them.)
Yes, I did punch cards. It made one very particular about ensuring that your code was correct before compiling/executing. As for data entry/document preperation; use your favorite search engine for "3270". And, finally, I did program EIA analogue computers with patch cords (in some cases). Took ages to programme, but the answers surely came quickly.;^)
People sem to have forgotten why everyone was so excited to be able to get away from that model in the first place.
Well, the reason was big, big, BIG savings! Then everyone wanted to use the printer and share their information, so they needed a network and then a server to coordinate the network and then a server to store everything so it wouldn't get lost and...
No, they didn't. There was some speculation on this (known as raising an hypothesis and then testing it), blown out of proportion by the popular press.
So in a couple of years I will hear you say that global warming was also a speculation blown out of proportion by the popular press? What a bunch of malarkey.
No, I shan't because I think there is a fair bit of hysteria already in the popular press and that this theory is supported by the work of the scientific community, unlike the Great Freeze. Personally, I don't believe that the problem can be tackled at all without a drastic reduction in population. Should there be a radical rethinking of AGW, there will certainly be some 'splainin' to do by the scientists.
Standard methods used in analysis of historical data available from multiple sources using multiple techniques; and identified as such.
This is empty rhetoric. Many words without actually saying anything. They did deliberate biased sampling leading to contradictory results with the original sample results. Why do you think they don't want to reveal their data or their algorithm under a Freedom Of Information act request? A hallmark of experimental science is that you need to have reproducible results. They should have done that even without the law explicitly requiring it.
I fail to see any deliberate biased sampling. I definately do agree that the raw data; as well as the algorithm, should be exposed.
No, they didn't.
Yes they did.:-)
You'll have to provide more evidence than selective quotes taken out of context to convince me. What I find more unsettling is the hint that there may have been some concerted effort applied to filtring out papers that did not support (or at least seriously questioned some of the conclusions of) AGW. That I would find unacceptable.
How about the Vikings settling North America (Canada) and calling it Vinland because you could grow grapes in it around 1000 AD? I have never read of a definitive answer for this. Certainly I never saw grapes at L'Anse aux Meadows:) The various explanations I have read include using berries for wine and Vinland actually refering to New England or Nova Scotia; both ares supporting grapes and NS does have a wine industry. The Vikings, after all, would not have a good idea of wines unless from Normandy.
Or settling areas of Greenland that were later covered by ice and only now being uncovered? Well, that would indicate having cooled (perhaps mediaeval cooling period finally reaching Greenland) and now, 1000 years later, warming up, wouldn't it?
Is this muddy grounding a sound basis for making erosive governmental policy? The "anti-global warming" people merely state it isn't. Muddy or not, reducing pollution and more efficient use of resources is surely better for our health and well-being, no? In any case, as indicated above, I believe that all this is useless as there are too many people. Crunching the numbers: bringing everyone up to half the West's living standard, even with multiple increases in efficiency, is not possible whilst simultaneously reducing energy use, crap pumped out, and destruction of habitat.
'Which means the biosphere actually had that carbon in it at a point and life didn't end as a result. So how come it will end now?' It won't, but we don't really care that algae and pond scum will have a more wonderful life at our expense.
'All the animals that we are supposed to have displaced and eliminated because of our evil human ways, did those not emit CO2 or methane either?' Sure they did; we have just increased dramatically the biomass of ruminants (in particular) using methods of intensive agriculture.
'Another is that this is the same science profession that warned us of global cooling and impending ice age doom. A couple of decades ago.' No, they didn't. There was some speculation on this (known as raising an hypothesis and then testing it), blown out of proportion by the popular press.
'Then there is the fact that they are mixing data measured from several disparaging sources, using different measurement techniques into the same chart and extrapolating trends from it.' Standard methods used in analysis of historical data available from multiple sources using multiple techniques; and identified as such.
'To add insult to injury it now transpires that they cherry picked measurement data in order to fit their theory rather than fitting their theory to the data.' No, they didn't.
You are one of ignorant, being deliberately obtuse, or lying, the first of which can be corrected if you are willing.
Slashdot Mirror
You people really have got a bunch of looney tunes in charge, don't you? Our leaders don't hold a candle to yours!
'Pointing the needle to something north of $500 million'
So is this more or less than eastsouthwest of 50 cents?
And I promise not to cross the street and pee on him if he's on fire.
United Artists began in just this fashion and for similar reasons: big name actors and actresses wanted more of the pie.
It has changed over the years.
Not so; Pasteur was not entirely correct. Lawyers spontaneously generate out of the muck. (That's why muck-rackers so frequently have lawyers around them.)
Actually, it was just a wasteland of trees that needed to be removed to reveal the view ;^)
I didn't think that politicians could write!
On an other note, I wonder how this robot would interpret it if I farted in its general direction?
You mean that you'd leave your loved ones to face it alone?
The kind I want to go out with. WooHoo; particle launcher!
If you want to keep something private, don't tell ANYone about it
Emphasised that for you ;^)
Comon; they're F/LOSS people; they've never done anything that hasn't been already.
'...if the website described any of the blood types in an undesirable manner.'
It does; I am described as a vegetarian.
Yes, I did punch cards. It made one very particular about ensuring that your code was correct before compiling/executing.
As for data entry/document preperation; use your favorite search engine for "3270".
And, finally, I did program EIA analogue computers with patch cords (in some cases). Took ages to programme, but the answers surely came quickly.;^)
Yeah, like writing a distributed ERP system in Java is any better.
People sem to have forgotten why everyone was so excited to be able to get away from that model in the first place.
Well, the reason was big, big, BIG savings! Then everyone wanted to use the printer and share their information, so they needed a network and then a server to coordinate the network and then a server to store everything so it wouldn't get lost and ...
In my day, we called it the mainframe.
No, he's replacing his dog.
Speaking as a pedestrian, I believe that synapse connections disappear as one learns to drive.
Look, Elvis is really, really, REALLY dead; live with it!
Yeah, but the Moon was out at night when it's dark and you need the light.
...do they think that...
They're Fox viewers; they don't do that.
No, I shan't because I think there is a fair bit of hysteria already in the popular press and that this theory is supported by the work of the scientific community, unlike the Great Freeze. Personally, I don't believe that the problem can be tackled at all without a drastic reduction in population.
Should there be a radical rethinking of AGW, there will certainly be some 'splainin' to do by the scientists.
I fail to see any deliberate biased sampling. I definately do agree that the raw data; as well as the algorithm, should be exposed.
You'll have to provide more evidence than selective quotes taken out of context to convince me. What I find more unsettling is the hint that there may have been some concerted effort applied to filtring out papers that did not support (or at least seriously questioned some of the conclusions of) AGW. That I would find unacceptable.
How about the Vikings settling North America (Canada) and calling it Vinland because you could grow grapes in it around 1000 AD? :) The various explanations I have read include using berries for wine and Vinland actually refering to New England or Nova Scotia; both ares supporting grapes and NS does have a wine industry. The Vikings, after all, would not have a good idea of wines unless from Normandy.
I have never read of a definitive answer for this. Certainly I never saw grapes at L'Anse aux Meadows
Or settling areas of Greenland that were later covered by ice and only now being uncovered?
Well, that would indicate having cooled (perhaps mediaeval cooling period finally reaching Greenland) and now, 1000 years later, warming up, wouldn't it?
Is this muddy grounding a sound basis for making erosive governmental policy? The "anti-global warming" people merely state it isn't.
Muddy or not, reducing pollution and more efficient use of resources is surely better for our health and well-being, no? In any case, as indicated above, I believe that all this is useless as there are too many people. Crunching the numbers: bringing everyone up to half the West's living standard, even with multiple increases in efficiency, is not possible whilst simultaneously reducing energy use, crap pumped out, and destruction of habitat.
'Which means the biosphere actually had that carbon in it at a point and life didn't end as a result. So how come it will end now?'
It won't, but we don't really care that algae and pond scum will have a more wonderful life at our expense.
'All the animals that we are supposed to have displaced and eliminated because of our evil human ways, did those not emit CO2 or methane either?'
Sure they did; we have just increased dramatically the biomass of ruminants (in particular) using methods of intensive agriculture.
'Another is that this is the same science profession that warned us of global cooling and impending ice age doom. A couple of decades ago.'
No, they didn't. There was some speculation on this (known as raising an hypothesis and then testing it), blown out of proportion by the popular press.
'Then there is the fact that they are mixing data measured from several disparaging sources, using different measurement techniques into the same chart and extrapolating trends from it.'
Standard methods used in analysis of historical data available from multiple sources using multiple techniques; and identified as such.
'To add insult to injury it now transpires that they cherry picked measurement data in order to fit their theory rather than fitting their theory to the data.'
No, they didn't.
You are one of ignorant, being deliberately obtuse, or lying, the first of which can be corrected if you are willing.
Simple; they'll keep the algorithm a secret! ;^)
'Has the patent office ever rejected anything?'
Yes, but only because the "contributions" were insufficient.