There's no reason to trust a scientist any more than you'd trust your barber.
Fine. Don't trust a scientist. But did you actually go read the papers and make your mind up for yourself? Do you have any objective criteria by which to assess the skepticism of evidence?
Perhaps you don't trust scientists, because that is what's "in" at the moment.
Don't blindly follow anyone including scientists without quantitative and reproducible proof.
I would believe that if skeptics actually argued their case scientifically. Instead we get a bunch of conspiracy theories and attacks on scientists' motives. Nobody has made a scientific refutation of AGW, and that is what is important to me.
If you were objective, then you would offer an objective criteria to assuage your guilt, and then study the science.
Science is about more than being incredulous. Any idiot can say they don't believe something.
What I see instead is a large number of credulous people who believe whatever certain pundits tell them is the best way to screw with liberals.
lol! That is so true.
The political-right seems to fall into two categories -- the deeply unselfconscious, who enjoy the solidarity of their equally unselfconscious colleagues, and those who are conscious, but for some reason aren't appalled that their political party plays fast and lose with the truth while gambling with our lives from a position of ignorance.
It would help if skeptics actually scrutinised the theory in a scientific way -- instead of making up conspiracy theories, and attacking the motives of those involved. The fact that no-one has been able to dismiss AGW in a proper scientific debate is what is important to me.
Of course I know the standard responses...I'm not a climate scientist so what do I know anything, Nature is "Dr. Jones Peer Reviewed", everyone else is paid by Exxon, blah blah blah.
That is, of course, irrelevant to you, right?? Not even worth thinking about. Suppress those thoughts you don't like!
Fact is that this issue is now beyond science and is being fought in the public forum.
That's right, and now the science of shaping public opinion is being used. And there is evidence. Irrefutable. That those very effective, scientifically derived techniques, are being employed to empower joe-average into thinking that they have some insight into things that they know hardly anything about.
You think that doesn't apply to you? You're so smart, read "Climate Cover-Up", and then try and explain even the most basic straight-forward elements to one of your skeptic colleagues.
You will discover a wall of projection -- which is invisible to you at the moment.
So because one summary graph on the cover of one paper uses a less than 100% perfect technique, therefore, the emails show a massive conspiracy by climate scientists.
And why quote Mann, when he's the guy who came up with the hockey stick? Or do you just agree with him in certain contexts, and ignore what he has to say in others?
Earth to skeptics: sensationalism detracts from intellectual integrity.
The windows on OS X aren't designed to take over the whole screen -- even on a smaller monitor. Most program observe this behaviour, creating a truly better user experience. I use Windows a lot, so I'm used to the more modal "program at a time" approach, and it is not a complete step backwards, however, I do hate how every program just wants to take over the entire screen.
Software should only use the screen real-estate that it needs to use, and no more.
There is absolutely no evidence that the election was rigged. Ahaminejad is very popular and has previously won election with big margins.
There is circumstantial evidence, and then there's the way the Ahaminejad and his supporters have acted. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This regime seems to be like the ZANU PF in Zimbabwe. Violent, mad, megalomaniacs.
It needs threads. I know the unwashed masses don't know what to do with them, but if you *do* know, then they can really be used to make much simpler code.
Unfortunately in these days of conservative vs. liberal sound-bite-bashing, it's impossible to discuss any complex solutions. The only choices we seem to have are "environmentalists are total frauds, burn all the oil you want" and "the world is about to end unless we impose a fascist state to dictate every detail of our lifestyles".
It might seem that way, yet in Australia, the liberal party (who are conservatives) are in danger of being relegated to the political wilderness, because the MPs want to block legislation to reduce CO2 emissions. In the end, they will back down or be destroyed. Politicians will go where the people lead.
What we need is a new sound-bite. Sustainable economy. It is going to take a long time to change, but we will need it one day, AGW or otherwise. Sadly, I believe we will have to wait for the first widespread disasters, because deniers are so obstinate with their views, that they will need a kick in the nuts before they can let go of their arrogance, and see that plundering the earth is ultimately the same is pissing in the bed in which you sleep.
Use a virtual machine -- it is really much easier once it is set up. If we could start the OS wars from scratch, but with modern hardware, I would argue for a very simple layer that sits just above BIOS, that reads the file system, and lunches different OSes running in virtual machines. If that were standard, then every OS would seamlessly work with the system.
The point of functional programming is that you don't have to think about locks or how to manage contention on your data structures because there is no such thing such thing as mutable data.
Great, now you get a whole bunch of cache misses, and your CPU is sitting at 10%.
The idea is that you can split up the program in parallel tasks in a fully automated way. If you as a programmer even have to think about parallelizing, I’m sorry, but then your compiler is “doin’ it wrong” and your languages is from the stone age.
This is not true in high-performance computing. If you don't want your CPU spinning its wheels on locks and cache misses, then you need to go quite low level -- and really think about the data structures you're using, and how to parallise tasks with next to no interthread communication.
Research shows that Fox viewers are by far the most uninformed news consumers. Fox viewers are the least able to discern fact from spin -- an effect that transcends educational, ethnic or class boundaries.
If you truly care about being informed about important issues, than I can only recommend that you are in a perfect position to study journalism with reference to social construction and the related epistemological issues. You may make a most remarkable discovery about our society.
The world religions contain deep and ancient knowledge about the human condition. It doesn't take a particularly smart person to work that out -- just someone with an open mind.
Unfortunately for Fox News, that would mean that they could not quote anyone or use excerpts from books or speeches without prior approval. He'll find that he can't have it both ways.
I think politicians in particular would like this, because they could cover up anything embarrassing by revoking permission to use it.
Fox isn't about reporting the news, but shaping public discourse on key issues. It's not like Murdoch would care if his cronies wanted to keep something quite. He's probably very trustworthy in that regard.
I looked at biased-bbc, and there are some interesting comments in there -- after you sift through a whole bunch. I've personally encountered quite a few poor articles on the BBC in my field of expertise, which has lead me to believe that you just can't rely on news media for sound analysis.
However, most often people attack the BBC because they simply disagree with what's being presented. I often find a lack of education on various issues. As far as bias goes, corporate media is orders of magnitude worse.
The reason, I believe, is structural. The BBC has a charter which it attempts to enact, where-as corporate media sings to the tune of consolidated interests -- and those interests are consolidated.
There is an interesting blind-spot where asserting that any sort of public institution is an act of "control" -- presumably because the people running those institutions are motivated by self-interest. The conclusion seems to be that corporate owner is freedom of choice, and freedom from control.
This conclusion would be correct if free markets were free and efficient, but they simply are not. Private ownership doesn't remove social hierarchy, but merely *shifts* hierarchy to the places where capital is concentrated. And these people have *no* charter, or check and balance.
I'm not trying to talk you into anything, but I'm curious to know if you at least understand the point!
For a case-study of the *consequences* of private "freedom", consider how corporate media reports on global warming. Basically, instead of choice, we're bombarded with a particular point of view, which has no respect for any sort of accuracy. In fact, hard-hitting investigative journalism merely invites expensive law-suits, so why bother.
False. And this is an example of how foolish you are being: FAIR is an explicitly leftwing organization! Why would you trust them to say there's no leftwing bias?
Let me guess, you didn't read the study, or the methodology. I dare you.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no reason to trust a scientist any more than you'd trust your barber.
Fine. Don't trust a scientist. But did you actually go read the papers and make your mind up for yourself? Do you have any objective criteria by which to assess the skepticism of evidence?
Perhaps you don't trust scientists, because that is what's "in" at the moment.
Don't blindly follow anyone including scientists without quantitative and reproducible proof.
I would believe that if skeptics actually argued their case scientifically. Instead we get a bunch of conspiracy theories and attacks on scientists' motives. Nobody has made a scientific refutation of AGW, and that is what is important to me.
If you were objective, then you would offer an objective criteria to assuage your guilt, and then study the science.
Science is about more than being incredulous. Any idiot can say they don't believe something.
even though the existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming cannot be determined through reason
It can.
You, of course, don't believe me. Fine.
If you were reasonable, you'd would offer an objective criteria from which to assuage your skepticism. Try it, and see what happens. Really.
What I see instead is a large number of credulous people who believe whatever certain pundits tell them is the best way to screw with liberals.
lol! That is so true.
The political-right seems to fall into two categories -- the deeply unselfconscious, who enjoy the solidarity of their equally unselfconscious colleagues, and those who are conscious, but for some reason aren't appalled that their political party plays fast and lose with the truth while gambling with our lives from a position of ignorance.
It would help if skeptics actually scrutinised the theory in a scientific way -- instead of making up conspiracy theories, and attacking the motives of those involved. The fact that no-one has been able to dismiss AGW in a proper scientific debate is what is important to me.
Of course I know the standard responses...I'm not a climate scientist so what do I know anything, Nature is "Dr. Jones Peer Reviewed", everyone else is paid by Exxon, blah blah blah.
Unlike the CRU emails, which show hardly anything suspicious at all, there is irrefutable and conclusive evidence for a massive public relations campaign run be Exxon and co.
That is, of course, irrelevant to you, right?? Not even worth thinking about. Suppress those thoughts you don't like!
Fact is that this issue is now beyond science and is being fought in the public forum.
That's right, and now the science of shaping public opinion is being used. And there is evidence. Irrefutable. That those very effective, scientifically derived techniques, are being employed to empower joe-average into thinking that they have some insight into things that they know hardly anything about.
You think that doesn't apply to you? You're so smart, read "Climate Cover-Up", and then try and explain even the most basic straight-forward elements to one of your skeptic colleagues.
You will discover a wall of projection -- which is invisible to you at the moment.
So because one summary graph on the cover of one paper uses a less than 100% perfect technique, therefore, the emails show a massive conspiracy by climate scientists.
And why quote Mann, when he's the guy who came up with the hockey stick? Or do you just agree with him in certain contexts, and ignore what he has to say in others?
Earth to skeptics: sensationalism detracts from intellectual integrity.
The windows on OS X aren't designed to take over the whole screen -- even on a smaller monitor. Most program observe this behaviour, creating a truly better user experience. I use Windows a lot, so I'm used to the more modal "program at a time" approach, and it is not a complete step backwards, however, I do hate how every program just wants to take over the entire screen.
Software should only use the screen real-estate that it needs to use, and no more.
They aren't fighting Islam, which is the root source of all their problems
Do you *really* believe that? Just how much do you really know about Islam anyway?
There is absolutely no evidence that the election was rigged. Ahaminejad is very popular and has previously won election with big margins.
There is circumstantial evidence, and then there's the way the Ahaminejad and his supporters have acted. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This regime seems to be like the ZANU PF in Zimbabwe. Violent, mad, megalomaniacs.
JS works will event loops.
Event loops are awesome for some problems, and a PITA for others.
It needs threads. I know the unwashed masses don't know what to do with them, but if you *do* know, then they can really be used to make much simpler code.
Unfortunately in these days of conservative vs. liberal sound-bite-bashing, it's impossible to discuss any complex solutions. The only choices we seem to have are "environmentalists are total frauds, burn all the oil you want" and "the world is about to end unless we impose a fascist state to dictate every detail of our lifestyles".
It might seem that way, yet in Australia, the liberal party (who are conservatives) are in danger of being relegated to the political wilderness, because the MPs want to block legislation to reduce CO2 emissions. In the end, they will back down or be destroyed. Politicians will go where the people lead.
What we need is a new sound-bite. Sustainable economy. It is going to take a long time to change, but we will need it one day, AGW or otherwise. Sadly, I believe we will have to wait for the first widespread disasters, because deniers are so obstinate with their views, that they will need a kick in the nuts before they can let go of their arrogance, and see that plundering the earth is ultimately the same is pissing in the bed in which you sleep.
All of your points have been rigorously refuted ad infinitum, yet to no avail
This is what many skeptic say.
Skeptics will say anything.
Use a virtual machine -- it is really much easier once it is set up. If we could start the OS wars from scratch, but with modern hardware, I would argue for a very simple layer that sits just above BIOS, that reads the file system, and lunches different OSes running in virtual machines. If that were standard, then every OS would seamlessly work with the system.
The point of functional programming is that you don't have to think about locks or how to manage contention on your data structures because there is no such thing such thing as mutable data.
Great, now you get a whole bunch of cache misses, and your CPU is sitting at 10%.
The idea is that you can split up the program in parallel tasks in a fully automated way. If you as a programmer even have to think about parallelizing, I’m sorry, but then your compiler is “doin’ it wrong” and your languages is from the stone age.
This is not true in high-performance computing. If you don't want your CPU spinning its wheels on locks and cache misses, then you need to go quite low level -- and really think about the data structures you're using, and how to parallise tasks with next to no interthread communication.
Research shows that Fox viewers are by far the most uninformed news consumers. Fox viewers are the least able to discern fact from spin -- an effect that transcends educational, ethnic or class boundaries.
If you truly care about being informed about important issues, than I can only recommend that you are in a perfect position to study journalism with reference to social construction and the related epistemological issues. You may make a most remarkable discovery about our society.
Only the consumer is agreeing to the EULA. It's the perfect legal bum steer.
To me, all religions are a scam.
Spoken like a true bigot.
The world religions contain deep and ancient knowledge about the human condition. It doesn't take a particularly smart person to work that out -- just someone with an open mind.
Unfortunately for Fox News, that would mean that they could not quote anyone or use excerpts from books or speeches without prior approval. He'll find that he can't have it both ways.
I think politicians in particular would like this, because they could cover up anything embarrassing by revoking permission to use it.
Fox isn't about reporting the news, but shaping public discourse on key issues. It's not like Murdoch would care if his cronies wanted to keep something quite. He's probably very trustworthy in that regard.
I looked at biased-bbc, and there are some interesting comments in there -- after you sift through a whole bunch. I've personally encountered quite a few poor articles on the BBC in my field of expertise, which has lead me to believe that you just can't rely on news media for sound analysis.
However, most often people attack the BBC because they simply disagree with what's being presented. I often find a lack of education on various issues. As far as bias goes, corporate media is orders of magnitude worse.
The reason, I believe, is structural. The BBC has a charter which it attempts to enact, where-as corporate media sings to the tune of consolidated interests -- and those interests are consolidated.
There is an interesting blind-spot where asserting that any sort of public institution is an act of "control" -- presumably because the people running those institutions are motivated by self-interest. The conclusion seems to be that corporate owner is freedom of choice, and freedom from control.
This conclusion would be correct if free markets were free and efficient, but they simply are not. Private ownership doesn't remove social hierarchy, but merely *shifts* hierarchy to the places where capital is concentrated. And these people have *no* charter, or check and balance.
I'm not trying to talk you into anything, but I'm curious to know if you at least understand the point!
For a case-study of the *consequences* of private "freedom", consider how corporate media reports on global warming. Basically, instead of choice, we're bombarded with a particular point of view, which has no respect for any sort of accuracy. In fact, hard-hitting investigative journalism merely invites expensive law-suits, so why bother.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
This took 1 minute to find. You know, there are academics who study these things.
False. And this is an example of how foolish you are being: FAIR is an explicitly leftwing organization! Why would you trust them to say there's no leftwing bias?
Let me guess, you didn't read the study, or the methodology. I dare you.
Do you really, honestly, expect the BBC to report objectively on itself?
It has in the past, and objectively on the government as well. There are many studies that show this. As for NPR/PBS, evidence shows that liberal bias is a myth.
Only an ignorant would pit the relatively spotless reputations of NPR/PBS/BBC against the blatant editorialising in corporate media.