Listen, you can either drop everything and study your ass off for the better part of a decade to get a PhD in atmospheric science, or listen to the people who have them.
This almost sounds like common sense.
But Joe Average can assess the debate by peering under the surface and reading the sources. The key question is -- are the sources being referenced correctly. The denialist argument is so shallow that this can be done very quickly. One side can back up their claims, and the other has nothing.
Climategate was not overrated -- it was a paranoid farce in a teacup, but let me explain further.
These are just twovideos among many that demonstrate just how out to lunch climate gate is.
Of course, you could just go and read the sources yourself and decide if the CRU scientists really did anything wrong. Can *you* find a single example?
And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.
With all due respect, there was consensus on the science in 1979. The talk includes a very good section about how political action groups have muddied the waters and turned the debate "laughable".
I think this short video deftly serves as an example of how the debate is enacted.
Also, David Suzuki has an excellent page on the topic of AGW. You don't think he's one of those ignoring science for financial gain do you?
btw, the merits of the arguments can be assessed independent of the motives of each "side". All you got to do is read the sources yourself. It is not a daunting as it seems, because you will very quickly discover that one side is just completely full of !#%@
I was thinking the same thing. For example, a political action group could be using this process to strip climate science of the peer-review process. As a consequence, certain ideologically motivated (*cough* laissez-faire capitalists *cough*) institutions will further their actual claim that there isn't scientific consensus.
Smoking weed is not homeopathy. That would be something more along the lines of traditional medicine or herbal medicine. Homeopathy is different. Look it up.
I make no claim as to if climate change is upon us or not, but it is ESSENTIAL that the science is revisited and made rock solid (or completely disproven)...
It was essentially proven about 30 years ago. See here for an example of just how dishonest this debate is. See here for a brief history of the debate.
There are serious concerns about the IPCC and some of their faulty results but the people mentioned in this article are neither competent nor willing to address them. Just bark with them or against them, do not try to have articulate discussion.
An army of skeptics troll through a thousand page report and find 2 minor errors. Yep. The problem is serious all right. Better burn the whole report.
It is not just relativistic values, it is social constructionism and post modernism gone awry. These are excellent intelligent theories, however, they are all too often used by people who don't understand maths, have no respect for science, and still want to claim the intellectual primacy of their beliefs. This includes a large section of the humanities.
The result is that science is just "spin". There is a point to that -- but it is too subtle for Joe Average College Student.
It is more than a double-standard. It is projection. A nasty form of denial where one sees their own faults onto their adversaries. Basically, you do bad science, lie, act unethically, and then accuse your opponents of your own actions. It is like a guy who goes to a bar and picks fights -- but he himself sees all of these other aggressive people. It is a type of madness.
Those $$$ figures are leaving out hidden costs -- quaintly called "externalities". They are well know about in economics -- but for some reason always get forgotten at convenient moments.
Actually you are missing something very important in your maths: relativity. It doesn't take much shorter to get to the destination from the perspective of someone on earth, but the tale is different for the people on the spaceship. The distance to the destination shrinks.
Sagan talks about this in Cosmos. If a theoretical spaceship accelerated constantly, it could traverse the entire universe in a mere 50 years -- but by the time it returned earth would be long gone.
Conceptually -- the universe has no "size" for a photon in a perfect vacuum. From the point of view of this theoretical photon, it is created in a distant star and intersects with your eye instantaneously. From our point of view it could take millions of years.
Considering that mass is what prevents light-speed travel (as well as the density of the medium being travelled through), that implies an interesting relationship between space-time and the higgs boson.
The bail-outs were to prevent a run on the banks -- which would have been far more serious than the depression in 1920, and probably 1929 as well. There was no run on the banks in 1920 -- so no bank bailout would have been warranted.
Not every economic crisis is exactly the same as the every other one. There is no canned solution to solve economic problems. Intelligence must be applied because situations have unique qualities. Talk about armchair economics.
Lassiez-faire doesn't solve the worlds evils either -- but that is another story, and I wouldn't want to tread on your ideology. It seems to be what you are advocating.
It sucks, they should all switch to Firefox (Or Chrome, or Opera, or anything but IE), but unfortunately most don't have a choice in the matter.
Of course they have choice, however, their IT departments would prefer to externalize the costs of upgrading from IE6. These are people who have no idea what the overall cost of this decision is -- and probably have to deal with IE6-only intranets that were designed by "developers" who sneered at supporting firefox.
We are *all* expected to have a sense of social responsibility, or end up with the label "jerk". The powerless do. But the rules work differently for the powerful. Everybody would be better off if these guys were given a kick in the nuts for taking advantage of their position.
Consider this. Corruption could just be seen as "naturally looking after your own self-interest". Since it is natural, it should be acceptable, except that it naturally leads to the demise of whole nations. We should demand better.
Selling to US troops is probably a hell of a lot less scary than selling to the Taliban.
That is unlikely from the farmer's perspective -- who may fear violent reprisals from the Taliban, and don't trust the christian infidels (US troops) anyway.
Surely companies could just buy the zero-day exploits, study them, and patch their software. Turn the black market to your own end. Then the problem is solved without time travel.
And foreign governments, their militarys and high-tech industries.
And they wouldn't be the first or the last. We have an obligation to protect ourselves, and if they sow the seeds of distrust then really that reflects on them.
Some people can't be bought, bargained or reasoned with
Some people are very good at working out who they can take advantage of. IMHO, teaching people to avoid being victims, and understanding why the victims are being picked is a *positive* step. I know this is slashdot and all, but isn't that what the article is about?
Slashdot Mirror
This website tracks how well Obama is keeping his promises
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!
The old boss destroyed the budget, and pissed off the whole world.
Clearly you have not seen Al Gore's movie.
What part of Al Gore's movie suggests that we sill see a dramatic change in a couple of years???
I mean...
??????????
I think I smell hyberbole =)
Listen, you can either drop everything and study your ass off for the better part of a decade to get a PhD in atmospheric science, or listen to the people who have them.
This almost sounds like common sense.
But Joe Average can assess the debate by peering under the surface and reading the sources. The key question is -- are the sources being referenced correctly. The denialist argument is so shallow that this can be done very quickly. One side can back up their claims, and the other has nothing.
cf. 'climategate', overrated as it may be
Climategate was not overrated -- it was a paranoid farce in a teacup, but let me explain further .
These are just two videos among many that demonstrate just how out to lunch climate gate is.
Of course, you could just go and read the sources yourself and decide if the CRU scientists really did anything wrong. Can *you* find a single example?
And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.
With all due respect, there was consensus on the science in 1979. The talk includes a very good section about how political action groups have muddied the waters and turned the debate "laughable".
I think this short video deftly serves as an example of how the debate is enacted.
Also, David Suzuki has an excellent page on the topic of AGW. You don't think he's one of those ignoring science for financial gain do you?
btw, the merits of the arguments can be assessed independent of the motives of each "side". All you got to do is read the sources yourself. It is not a daunting as it seems, because you will very quickly discover that one side is just completely full of !#%@
There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point
The CRU emails show show no such thing.
I was thinking the same thing. For example, a political action group could be using this process to strip climate science of the peer-review process. As a consequence, certain ideologically motivated (*cough* laissez-faire capitalists *cough*) institutions will further their actual claim that there isn't scientific consensus.
However, there was scientific consensus in the 70s.
So -- how do you know what is real?
Smoking weed is not homeopathy. That would be something more along the lines of traditional medicine or herbal medicine. Homeopathy is different. Look it up.
I make no claim as to if climate change is upon us or not, but it is ESSENTIAL that the science is revisited and made rock solid (or completely disproven)...
It was essentially proven about 30 years ago. See here for an example of just how dishonest this debate is. See here for a brief history of the debate.
There are serious concerns about the IPCC and some of their faulty results but the people mentioned in this article are neither competent nor willing to address them. Just bark with them or against them, do not try to have articulate discussion.
An army of skeptics troll through a thousand page report and find 2 minor errors. Yep. The problem is serious all right. Better burn the whole report.
I think that relativistic values
It is not just relativistic values, it is social constructionism and post modernism gone awry. These are excellent intelligent theories, however, they are all too often used by people who don't understand maths, have no respect for science, and still want to claim the intellectual primacy of their beliefs. This includes a large section of the humanities.
The result is that science is just "spin". There is a point to that -- but it is too subtle for Joe Average College Student.
It is a massive double standard!
It is more than a double-standard. It is projection. A nasty form of denial where one sees their own faults onto their adversaries. Basically, you do bad science, lie, act unethically, and then accuse your opponents of your own actions. It is like a guy who goes to a bar and picks fights -- but he himself sees all of these other aggressive people. It is a type of madness.
Those $$$ figures are leaving out hidden costs -- quaintly called "externalities". They are well know about in economics -- but for some reason always get forgotten at convenient moments.
You take the sum of temperatures across the entire earth and average them. If the average goes down, then global warming is disproved.
There are well known cycles as well. Perhaps you'll find this video interesting, because it shows the argument in action.
And who does Utah want researching climate issues, if not climate researchers? Shoe salesmen?
Anybody on minimum wage, so long as the results are cleared past the Exxon marketing department of course.
Actually you are missing something very important in your maths: relativity. It doesn't take much shorter to get to the destination from the perspective of someone on earth, but the tale is different for the people on the spaceship. The distance to the destination shrinks.
Sagan talks about this in Cosmos. If a theoretical spaceship accelerated constantly, it could traverse the entire universe in a mere 50 years -- but by the time it returned earth would be long gone.
Conceptually -- the universe has no "size" for a photon in a perfect vacuum. From the point of view of this theoretical photon, it is created in a distant star and intersects with your eye instantaneously. From our point of view it could take millions of years.
Considering that mass is what prevents light-speed travel (as well as the density of the medium being travelled through), that implies an interesting relationship between space-time and the higgs boson.
The universe is stranger than any fiction.
The bail-outs were to prevent a run on the banks -- which would have been far more serious than the depression in 1920, and probably 1929 as well. There was no run on the banks in 1920 -- so no bank bailout would have been warranted.
Not every economic crisis is exactly the same as the every other one. There is no canned solution to solve economic problems. Intelligence must be applied because situations have unique qualities. Talk about armchair economics.
Lassiez-faire doesn't solve the worlds evils either -- but that is another story, and I wouldn't want to tread on your ideology. It seems to be what you are advocating.
not only that but users don't exist so you can dictate their needs to them, you exist to provide a service.
If only those users knew that clicking on that IE7 thing over there would save the world a *lot* of hassles. But sysadmins don't grok that.
Do you see the circular logic here?
Yes, and sysadmins take advantage of that -- handcuffing developers to make their life simpler.
It sucks, they should all switch to Firefox (Or Chrome, or Opera, or anything but IE), but unfortunately most don't have a choice in the matter.
Of course they have choice, however, their IT departments would prefer to externalize the costs of upgrading from IE6. These are people who have no idea what the overall cost of this decision is -- and probably have to deal with IE6-only intranets that were designed by "developers" who sneered at supporting firefox.
We are *all* expected to have a sense of social responsibility, or end up with the label "jerk". The powerless do. But the rules work differently for the powerful. Everybody would be better off if these guys were given a kick in the nuts for taking advantage of their position.
Consider this. Corruption could just be seen as "naturally looking after your own self-interest". Since it is natural, it should be acceptable, except that it naturally leads to the demise of whole nations. We should demand better.
Selling to US troops is probably a hell of a lot less scary than selling to the Taliban.
That is unlikely from the farmer's perspective -- who may fear violent reprisals from the Taliban, and don't trust the christian infidels (US troops) anyway.
Surely companies could just buy the zero-day exploits, study them, and patch their software. Turn the black market to your own end. Then the problem is solved without time travel.
They'll be spying on their own citizens.
And foreign governments, their militarys and high-tech industries.
And they wouldn't be the first or the last. We have an obligation to protect ourselves, and if they sow the seeds of distrust then really that reflects on them.
Some people can't be bought, bargained or reasoned with
Some people are very good at working out who they can take advantage of. IMHO, teaching people to avoid being victims, and understanding why the victims are being picked is a *positive* step. I know this is slashdot and all, but isn't that what the article is about?