That is not "essentially happening". Let's fleshen out your example:
You are tasked with recording the temperature of every day of 1962, at noon (apparent solar time). Every day you take a temperature measurement, and describe when and how it was taken. You release the data and the description of your method. Good work! You've just given some data to the science community, which is a lovely thing to do, and everyone rightly thinks you're a real hoopy frood.
Now, the years pass and someone wants to use your data, as they are very interested in the temperatures in your part of the world in 1962. They take your numbers, and look at how they were collected. They notice that you used a "Blogg's Perfect Thermometer", which a year after you made your measurements were shown to be poorly calibrated. The researcher then finds the likely amount the thermometer is off by (by whatever method they can - testing lots of those thermometers, etc.), and then uses that to correct your data. Now your data is even more accurate! You should be very happy.
Then, someone else looks at this data, and notices that you took the temperature at mid-day, not apparent solar time. To fix this, they use another source of temperatures to work out the difference on each day apply it to your data. Your data is now even more accurate! Yay! Happy times!
At no point did anyone simply look at your data and go "fuck it I don't like this let's change it" - they saw errors in the measurement methodology, quantified them, and corrected each point. The end result is more accurate data. The most recent climate-related data correction you are probably referring to was the buoy measurements, which showed a difference between ship-born measurements and the buoys' measurements. They're both measuring the same thing, so clearly there is some calibration issue or another problem in the methodology, as they should be returning the same values. They identified the problem and calculated the difference, and could then choose to apply it to the shipping temperatures, or to the buoy temperatures. Either is fine, as they are interested in the change of temperature rather than the actual temperature itself. They chose to change the buoy temperatures as the data set is less. That's it. At no point was anything dodgy done, though I can imagine to someone who doesn't want their findings to be believed would see something shady in it. That speaks more of you than of the scientists:)
Because if it can be taught to children, those who think themselves awesome because they know it suddenly start to think a little less of themselves, which triggers an emotional outburst as to precisely why it's a bad idea for children to learn about a very important part of the modern world. Or something similar:-P
I think it's you who refuses to understand. You are saying that changing all the software and hardware on the internet is easier than running a second stack on the same network, and moving clients and servers to the new stack when suitable...
No, he's talking about IP addresses and not the automatic distribution thereof. If you are scared of them or if they confuse you or just make you feel weird, use DNS like sane people, or HOSTS files like APK:-P
So use DNS like normal people, and the problem goes away. That's why we have DNS in the first place - numbers are difficult for people to remember accurately. There used to be people complaining about IPv4 addresses being unwieldy and difficult to remember, too. Your complaint is rational, understandable, nothing new, and already fixed.
Calm down, APK. I'm sure your behaviour seems perfectly normal to you, but to everyone else it is bizarre, cruel, and annoying. People will think less of you for every strange stalker-esque post you make, and even less for your ceaseless spamming.
So much fail. Speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab. The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is time, and neither of those terms are used in biology as they mean nothing - the term is simply "evolution".
Claiming something is not the same as having evidence of something. There are masses of evidence in support of the theory of evolution, and absolutely none in support of ID.
The conclusions of the study in to climate change aredrawn from impartial and objective analysis of the collected data. You thinking otherwise doesn't change that fact, and makes you look like one of the anti-science lunatics you are attempting to attack. Why should anyone respect science when chucklefucks like you feel entitled to disparage an entire field of science because you assume it to be corrupt, due to their discoveries being at odds with whatever political machinery lives in your head.
Did you? This is referring to one of the methods of measuring temperature, not all of them. If you are right, then all of them would have to be wrong, which is not at all what's happened.
Translation: "I don't know what these guys are talking about, but I want them to be wrong, so I will tell everyone just how little I know about this subject and complain like my opinion matters"
With your track record of condemning all members of a particular religion based on nothing more than conjecture and projection, you might have a fight trying to appear objective yourself...
You get some very basic facts incredibly wrong, so why should anyone listen to you again? You have an uncanny gift of getting really confused about something but believing yourself to be 100% right, and even after people point that out to you, you ignore it and power on through being wrong anyway. I'm not saying you're wrong this time, but your track record really isn't helping.
If it's the most important gas at ~400ppm, then it must be very powerful and we should ensure we don't have too much or too little of it. Wait - that's what the climatologists are concerned with. Weird.
There wasn't a failure. They made a startling prediction which spurred action to reduce the very thing it modelled. Because the action was so great the model's predictions didn't happen.
1. People start dying from Ebola 2. Scientists model the outbreak, making predictions based on what is currently happening 3. The world's governments and NGOs see the model's predictions and decide that's not an acceptable outcome, and make an effort to reduce it 4. The effort is so effective that the outcome doesn't match the predictions which triggered the effort to be made in the first place 5. The prediction then doesn't match the outcome, so idiots on Slashdot think the models were inaccurate and useless
You really don't know how any of this works, do you? This is becoming more and more obvious with every post you make. Learned the difference between sea ice and land ice yet?:)
The models were not an overstatement, though. If nothing was done, their predictions would have been far more accurate. No-one was lied to with this model. It only seems like an overestimation because it was so effective at rallying aid for & education of the epidemic.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not "essentially happening". Let's fleshen out your example:
You are tasked with recording the temperature of every day of 1962, at noon (apparent solar time). Every day you take a temperature measurement, and describe when and how it was taken. You release the data and the description of your method. Good work! You've just given some data to the science community, which is a lovely thing to do, and everyone rightly thinks you're a real hoopy frood.
Now, the years pass and someone wants to use your data, as they are very interested in the temperatures in your part of the world in 1962. They take your numbers, and look at how they were collected. They notice that you used a "Blogg's Perfect Thermometer", which a year after you made your measurements were shown to be poorly calibrated. The researcher then finds the likely amount the thermometer is off by (by whatever method they can - testing lots of those thermometers, etc.), and then uses that to correct your data. Now your data is even more accurate! You should be very happy.
Then, someone else looks at this data, and notices that you took the temperature at mid-day, not apparent solar time. To fix this, they use another source of temperatures to work out the difference on each day apply it to your data. Your data is now even more accurate! Yay! Happy times!
At no point did anyone simply look at your data and go "fuck it I don't like this let's change it" - they saw errors in the measurement methodology, quantified them, and corrected each point. The end result is more accurate data. The most recent climate-related data correction you are probably referring to was the buoy measurements, which showed a difference between ship-born measurements and the buoys' measurements. They're both measuring the same thing, so clearly there is some calibration issue or another problem in the methodology, as they should be returning the same values. They identified the problem and calculated the difference, and could then choose to apply it to the shipping temperatures, or to the buoy temperatures. Either is fine, as they are interested in the change of temperature rather than the actual temperature itself. They chose to change the buoy temperatures as the data set is less. That's it. At no point was anything dodgy done, though I can imagine to someone who doesn't want their findings to be believed would see something shady in it. That speaks more of you than of the scientists :)
Because if it can be taught to children, those who think themselves awesome because they know it suddenly start to think a little less of themselves, which triggers an emotional outburst as to precisely why it's a bad idea for children to learn about a very important part of the modern world. Or something similar :-P
I think it's you who refuses to understand. You are saying that changing all the software and hardware on the internet is easier than running a second stack on the same network, and moving clients and servers to the new stack when suitable...
Give up, please. Your determination is laudable, but your ignorance is astounding.
No, he's talking about IP addresses and not the automatic distribution thereof. If you are scared of them or if they confuse you or just make you feel weird, use DNS like sane people, or HOSTS files like APK :-P
So use DNS like normal people, and the problem goes away. That's why we have DNS in the first place - numbers are difficult for people to remember accurately. There used to be people complaining about IPv4 addresses being unwieldy and difficult to remember, too. Your complaint is rational, understandable, nothing new, and already fixed.
Calm down, APK. I'm sure your behaviour seems perfectly normal to you, but to everyone else it is bizarre, cruel, and annoying. People will think less of you for every strange stalker-esque post you make, and even less for your ceaseless spamming.
So much fail. Speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab. The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is time, and neither of those terms are used in biology as they mean nothing - the term is simply "evolution".
Claiming something is not the same as having evidence of something. There are masses of evidence in support of the theory of evolution, and absolutely none in support of ID.
The conclusions of the study in to climate change aredrawn from impartial and objective analysis of the collected data. You thinking otherwise doesn't change that fact, and makes you look like one of the anti-science lunatics you are attempting to attack. Why should anyone respect science when chucklefucks like you feel entitled to disparage an entire field of science because you assume it to be corrupt, due to their discoveries being at odds with whatever political machinery lives in your head.
Did you? This is referring to one of the methods of measuring temperature, not all of them. If you are right, then all of them would have to be wrong, which is not at all what's happened.
The Greenland ice cores show what happened in Greenland. You'd need a bit more evidence to show that change was reflected across the entire planet...
Translation: "I don't know what these guys are talking about, but I want them to be wrong, so I will tell everyone just how little I know about this subject and complain like my opinion matters"
With your track record of condemning all members of a particular religion based on nothing more than conjecture and projection, you might have a fight trying to appear objective yourself...
You get some very basic facts incredibly wrong, so why should anyone listen to you again? You have an uncanny gift of getting really confused about something but believing yourself to be 100% right, and even after people point that out to you, you ignore it and power on through being wrong anyway. I'm not saying you're wrong this time, but your track record really isn't helping.
If it's the most important gas at ~400ppm, then it must be very powerful and we should ensure we don't have too much or too little of it. Wait - that's what the climatologists are concerned with. Weird.
It's not halted, but lots of companies are now building out data centers in other countries so they don't have to deal with the NSA's nonsense.
That excuses the US's behavior somehow? Are you 5 years old?
If you are an adult and don't understand, you really need help.
He didn't have to as you asking for it served absolutely no purpose, so he, quite correctly, pointed that out to you and tried to help you understand.
There wasn't a failure. They made a startling prediction which spurred action to reduce the very thing it modelled. Because the action was so great the model's predictions didn't happen.
1. People start dying from Ebola
2. Scientists model the outbreak, making predictions based on what is currently happening
3. The world's governments and NGOs see the model's predictions and decide that's not an acceptable outcome, and make an effort to reduce it
4. The effort is so effective that the outcome doesn't match the predictions which triggered the effort to be made in the first place
5. The prediction then doesn't match the outcome, so idiots on Slashdot think the models were inaccurate and useless
You really don't know how any of this works, do you? This is becoming more and more obvious with every post you make. Learned the difference between sea ice and land ice yet? :)
Then rigorously show how this is the case. It's really that simple. The fact it has not been done yet should tell you something.
The models were not an overstatement, though. If nothing was done, their predictions would have been far more accurate. No-one was lied to with this model. It only seems like an overestimation because it was so effective at rallying aid for & education of the epidemic.