Of course they were. What does the I in ISP mean? "Internet".
If what you offer can interoperate with the network, you're an ISP. What do you think the ip network looked like before the web? Hint: nobody really used Gopher (other than.ca whois) and 99% of all activity was mail and news. Which came from uucp and was ported to IP. But until the web came along there was simply no reason for a pain in the ass SLIP or PPP connection cause you could do anything important with a uucp connection.
ftp wasn't the only way to move files around. And as a user of the network you couldn't tell if those other people were on uucp or the ip network, it was all transparent to you - Interoperability.
You're used to dialing with ISDN or DSL and have it connect?
That's adorable.
Know what you got 90% of the time when you dialed up with a modem back then? A busy signal.
That's cause for every modem that existed, 5 guys wanted to use it. This went on until cable and dsl, late 90s or so.
So it was considered rude to dial up, then go away and leave it connected when you weren't using it and people were waiting.
Free ISP's (there were many, Barry was just the first pay-for one) would jut disconnect you and fuck you that's why. And most didn't charge so they could do this. But if you were paying, yupi might not expect that o had to be aware of the rules, like don't spam and don't tie up the modem pool.
You don't like it? Open your own isp and you can do what you like and waste your very expensive phone lines on people that forgot to hang up when they went out.
Anybody could connect to the uucp network, it was ad-hoc and came with unix all out of bell labs and written by private industry.
The TCP/IP network otoh, was paid for by USG research dollars which the USG thinks gives them statutory authority over it, hence the dns and ip regime in place now which is effectively government control, not the private industry control that exists over the network itself.
At the time the NSF regulated IP transit with the AUP; Steve Wolff, who Barry mentioned, was in charge of this and felt the network would grow more quickly if the NSF wasn't "in the loop" and withdrew the AUP thus handing over the network to private control.
I asked Wolff years later why he didn't liberate the DNS as well as the network, it remained under the auspices of the NSF which got us to where we are not. He said in retrospect he should have; he didn't think it was important back then but if he knew then what he knows now he would have done it.
You have to keep in mine too there was nothing ON the TCP/IP network. Both UUCP and TCP/IP had email (although the ip side lagged badly, mail was really invented at Bell, IP made very crude versions of this ad took forever to do it) but News had come out of UUCP and there wasn't much else on the network. You really only needed IP if you needed to telnet or ftp and in 90 not many people were being paid to do this. So dial up uucp sites were not uncommon even then - every city had them, and from there you could real mail and news. That's all the network was back then.
You know when they're using weasel words like this they're being disingenuous:
"Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years. Raw data shows it's still increasing."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero." Note also CO2 rose the entire tie, it just didn't get any warmer for 17 years.
This is an NOAA.gov stateent based on NOAA data. And they disagree with this? Ok, what's the source of their data? Have they told the NOAA they're wrong yet?
If one panel provides all you need during daylight hours you use 2 or 3 or 4 and store it in a battery.
This, and not nuclear it undisputably the way of the future. There is no such thing as a safe nuclear plant. I'm sure the people that had to leave Fukushima prefecture would disagree about the lack of danger to public health. Would you live there now?
Germany will be 100% renewable by 5050. Portugal is already 75%.
We can not afford, on many levels, and do not need: nukes. This has been shown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... Germany is the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installer, with a solar PV capacity of 35.996 gigawatts (GW) at the end of February 2014.[2] The German new solar PV installations increased by about 7.6 GW in 2012, and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity.[3] Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050.[4] Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050.[5]
"In July 2009, India unveiled a US$19 billion plan to produce 20 GW of solar power by 2020.[2] Under the plan, the use of solar-powered equipment and applications would be made compulsory in all government buildings, as well as hospitals and hotels.[3] On 18 November 2009, it was reported that India was ready to launch its National Solar Mission under the National Action Plan on Climate Change, with plans to generate 1,000 MW of power by 2013.[4] From August 2011 to July 2012, India went from 2.5 MW of grid connected photovoltaics to over 1,000 MW." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
" In 2012 China installed 5.0 GW of solar panel capacity. As of 2012, about 8.3 GW of photovoltaics contribute towards power generation in China.[1] Solar water heating is extensively implemented as well.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
And we're not even trying hard. Hopefully soon, well. Anything to avoid those damn dirty dangerous nuclear disaster that endanger countless future generations.
...that showed the nuclear industry is a major backer to the "global warming" PR hysteria.
China builds two power plants a week. Big Nuke uses this "global warming" as a defensive posture to combat the sale coal plants.
Of course the incorruptible UN suggests we need more nuclear plants - but then they have never actually administered a country.
If you look at countries like Germany and India who are becoming less and less dependant on fossil fuels, it's because of solar, not nuclear and in fact the trend is to get away from nuclear. They're always way over budget to build, way more expensive to run and in some cases cost too much to decommission so they sit there.
If you want to see just what a boondoogle contemporayr nuclear plants are, Adam Curtis explores this really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not only is the corruption involved massive but the design is fundamentally flawed - they're scaled up sub reactors and they work in subs because you can dump the small core at sea. The guy that designed them objected most strenuously to the idea you could scale them up to a massive size on land and consider them safe: Fukushima proved he was right,
Nuclear: the gift that keeps on giving: for tens of thousands of years. In a world where we still can't get Fukushima under control the idea we should build more is morally reprehensible.
This is the most insane idea yet from the UN all because of a "problem" that's as real as WMD in Iraq. Bad math + bad science = we need more nukes. Dear mother of God...
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver
Check the math. There's been no warming since 98. If you had facts on your side you wouldn't need to use rhetoric like "denier".
This is not the holocaust.
Also, this wasn't "a few days of bad weather" this was two years of awful winters, cold springs and 100 year record cold in some places because of five polar vortexes in a winter that a) began a month early and b) ened late and c) was predicted in 2007 by a method the IPCC claimed had nothing to do with it.
Excuse me but you're on the wrong side of the prediction credibility gap here. And all the rhetoric in the world won't fix that. You may lie, but the numbers do not.
Now it's a range of 1.5 to 4.5 (4.5F ~7C) degree change.
Has this gone up, or down? Looks like down to me.
NASA pointed out the prediction was too high and the current prediction has been attenuated somewhat.
If you check, since 1985, smarter people than you and I have been saying "but plants eat CO2, especially when they get warmer" and the alarmists have always said "no". Check for yourself.
Now they're describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected" that this actually happens. These are the "experts" that know ALL about CO2. Suuuuuuuuure they do.
But wait. There's more. Recently Freeman Dyson said:
“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic predictions trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
and
"Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade."
Recently Lovelock said:
"Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that."
Last week the Daily Fail reported the AP had had the IPCC report leaked to it and reported:
"Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain."
"Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve."
"The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter. The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
And "New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64C warming 'Important to get these things right', says scientist"
Forests soak up third of fossil fuel emissions: study By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – 5 days ago
PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown.
The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said.
"This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra.
"If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected".
Also odd how this guy in 2007 was able to predict this winter's 100-year record breaking cold from things the IPCC have nothing to do with climate:
Yes. It's pretty hard to understand, I take it English isn't their primary language, so no fault of their own, but it doesn't exactly make it really clear; some of the commentary here did a better job of that.
Slashdot Mirror
"but they aren't sufficient to make you an ISP."
Of course they were. What does the I in ISP mean? "Internet".
If what you offer can interoperate with the network, you're an ISP. What do you think the ip network looked like before the web? Hint: nobody really used Gopher (other than .ca whois) and 99% of all activity was mail and news. Which came from uucp and was ported to IP. But until the web came along there was simply no reason for a pain in the ass SLIP or PPP connection cause you could do anything important with a uucp connection.
ftp wasn't the only way to move files around. And as a user of the network you couldn't tell if those other people were on uucp or the ip network, it was all transparent to you - Interoperability.
You weren't there. Clearly.
You're used to dialing with ISDN or DSL and have it connect?
That's adorable.
Know what you got 90% of the time when you dialed up with a modem back then? A busy signal.
That's cause for every modem that existed, 5 guys wanted to use it. This went on until cable and dsl, late 90s or so.
So it was considered rude to dial up, then go away and leave it connected when you weren't using it and people were waiting.
Free ISP's (there were many, Barry was just the first pay-for one) would jut disconnect you and fuck you that's why. And most didn't charge so they could do this. But if you were paying, yupi might not expect that o had to be aware of the rules, like don't spam and don't tie up the modem pool.
You don't like it? Open your own isp and you can do what you like and waste your very expensive phone lines on people that forgot to hang up when they went out.
All of the internet ran on stolen equipment and stolen phone lines back then. You made it work by whatever means possible.
Jesus Christ, Sun and Cisco were both formed on the commission of a federal crime - they stole the machines from Stanford.
The problem with the Internet is the unusual personalities of the people that built and use.*
Barry literally wrote the book on tcp/ip, and as he says, the net was small back then and we all knew each other.
who the fuck are you?
*This is probably true of Slashdot, too.
That's nice. It's still compu$serve.
If you knew what you were doing you didn't pay for net, that's the advantage to store and forward uucp over always-on IP.
No.
Anybody could connect to the uucp network, it was ad-hoc and came with unix all out of bell labs and written by private industry.
The TCP/IP network otoh, was paid for by USG research dollars which the USG thinks gives them statutory authority over it, hence the dns and ip regime in place now which is effectively government control, not the private industry control that exists over the network itself.
At the time the NSF regulated IP transit with the AUP; Steve Wolff, who Barry mentioned, was in charge of this and felt the network would grow more quickly if the NSF wasn't "in the loop" and withdrew the AUP thus handing over the network to private control.
I asked Wolff years later why he didn't liberate the DNS as well as the network, it remained under the auspices of the NSF which got us to where we are not. He said in retrospect he should have; he didn't think it was important back then but if he knew then what he knows now he would have done it.
You have to keep in mine too there was nothing ON the TCP/IP network. Both UUCP and TCP/IP had email (although the ip side lagged badly, mail was really invented at Bell, IP made very crude versions of this ad took forever to do it) but News had come out of UUCP and there wasn't much else on the network. You really only needed IP if you needed to telnet or ftp and in 90 not many people were being paid to do this. So dial up uucp sites were not uncommon even then - every city had them, and from there you could real mail and news. That's all the network was back then.
" It holds a very important place in history"
Only in fido-land. It was a pox to the rest of the net.
Q:How do you know when the Fido boys tried to gateway again?
A: there are 300 posts in alt.aquaria. 280 of them are the same.
Every. Friggin. Time.
And no I don't know why your tank is green.
Lots of guys did - Karl Denninger in Chicago and Greg Laskin LA. But they were UUCP not IP connections.
If /. allowed caps you'd see a BIFF@BIT.NET post here.
So you won't.
You know when they're using weasel words like this they're being disingenuous:
"Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years. Raw data shows it's still increasing."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero." Note also CO2 rose the entire tie, it just didn't get any warmer for 17 years.
This is an NOAA.gov stateent based on NOAA data. And they disagree with this? Ok, what's the source of their data? Have they told the NOAA they're wrong yet?
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
I've used a T61 Thinkpad for ages now and it almost alarming the difference between the laptop screen and say, a nice 24" external monitor at 1920 px.
Has anybody with a Y510p tried running of of those cheap Seiki 4K screens?
Or the $50 tv boxen on ebay that claim to do 4K, anyone tried those?
Duh.
Pollution? Corporations.
Global climate grant change? Scientists.
How bout we get back to the pollution issue which has been attenuated by climate discussion.
Pollution is not under dispute.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
The NTIA are the winners that gave us ICANN.
They're under the department of *commerce*.
IANA says you can't. Courts have said otherwise.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/...
http://www.internetgovernance....
http://domainincite.com/3936-m...
Which will fragment blocks and increase the size of the routing table.
http://ipv4auctions.bstocksolu...
Portugal’s electricity network operator announced that renewable energy supplied 70 percent of total consumption in the first quarter of this year.
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
I somehow doubt what you are saying.
If one panel provides all you need during daylight hours you use 2 or 3 or 4 and store it in a battery.
This, and not nuclear it undisputably the way of the future. There is no such thing as a safe nuclear plant. I'm sure the people that had to leave Fukushima prefecture would disagree about the lack of danger to public health. Would you live there now?
Germany will be 100% renewable by 5050. Portugal is already 75%.
We can not afford, on many levels, and do not need: nukes. This has been shown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Germany is the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installer, with a solar PV capacity of 35.996 gigawatts (GW) at the end of February 2014.[2] The German new solar PV installations increased by about 7.6 GW in 2012, and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity.[3] Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050.[4] Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050.[5]
"In July 2009, India unveiled a US$19 billion plan to produce 20 GW of solar power by 2020.[2] Under the plan, the use of solar-powered equipment and applications would be made compulsory in all government buildings, as well as hospitals and hotels.[3] On 18 November 2009, it was reported that India was ready to launch its National Solar Mission under the National Action Plan on Climate Change, with plans to generate 1,000 MW of power by 2013.[4] From August 2011 to July 2012, India went from 2.5 MW of grid connected photovoltaics to over 1,000 MW."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
" In 2012 China installed 5.0 GW of solar panel capacity. As of 2012, about 8.3 GW of photovoltaics contribute towards power generation in China.[1] Solar water heating is extensively implemented as well.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
And we're not even trying hard. Hopefully soon, well. Anything to avoid those damn dirty dangerous nuclear disaster that endanger countless future generations.
...that showed the nuclear industry is a major backer to the "global warming" PR hysteria.
China builds two power plants a week. Big Nuke uses this "global warming" as a defensive posture to combat the sale coal plants.
Of course the incorruptible UN suggests we need more nuclear plants - but then they have never actually administered a country.
If you look at countries like Germany and India who are becoming less and less dependant on fossil fuels, it's because of
solar, not nuclear and in fact the trend is to get away from nuclear. They're always way over budget to build, way more expensive to run and in some cases cost too much to decommission so they sit there.
If you want to see just what a boondoogle contemporayr nuclear plants are, Adam Curtis explores this really well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not only is the corruption involved massive but the design is fundamentally flawed - they're scaled up sub reactors and they work in subs because you can dump the small core at sea. The guy that designed them objected most strenuously to the idea you could scale them up to a massive size on land and consider them safe: Fukushima proved he was right,
Nuclear: the gift that keeps on giving: for tens of thousands of years. In a world where we still can't get Fukushima under control the idea we should build more is morally reprehensible.
This is the most insane idea yet from the UN all because of a "problem" that's as real as WMD in Iraq. Bad math + bad science = we need more nukes. Dear mother of God...
"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver
Check the math. There's been no warming since 98. If you had facts on your side you wouldn't need to use rhetoric like "denier".
This is not the holocaust.
Also, this wasn't "a few days of bad weather" this was two years of awful winters, cold springs and 100 year record cold in some places because of five polar vortexes in a winter that a) began a month early and b) ened late and c) was predicted in 2007 by a method the IPCC claimed had nothing to do with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Excuse me but you're on the wrong side of the prediction credibility gap here. And all the rhetoric in the world won't fix that. You may lie, but the numbers do not.
Let me try it again slowly.
It's been a 7F degree rise for ages.
Now it's a range of 1.5 to 4.5 (4.5F ~7C) degree change.
Has this gone up, or down? Looks like down to me.
NASA pointed out the prediction was too high and the current prediction has been attenuated somewhat.
If you check, since 1985, smarter people than you and I have been saying "but plants eat CO2, especially when they get warmer" and the alarmists have always said "no". Check for yourself.
Now they're describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected" that this actually happens. These are the "experts" that know ALL about CO2. Suuuuuuuuure they do.
But wait. There's more. Recently Freeman Dyson said:
“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic predictions trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
and
"Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade."
Recently Lovelock said:
"Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that."
Last week the Daily Fail reported the AP had had the IPCC report leaked to it and reported:
"Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain."
"Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve."
"The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the
It was a 7 degree rise for ages:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matte...
Now that's the high end of the "prediction".
In 2010 NASA said this:
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
And "New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64C warming
'Important to get these things right', says scientist"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
In 2011 it was "Discovered" trees eat CO2:
Originally found at: http://www.google.com/hostedne...
Forests soak up third of fossil fuel emissions: study
By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – 5 days ago
PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown.
The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said.
"This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra.
"If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected".
Also odd how this guy in 2007 was able to predict this winter's 100-year record breaking cold from things the IPCC have nothing to do with climate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Do the alarmists have an explanation for these?
"What habits have you found effective for system administration?"
Carrying an Uzi.
"Did you read the bug report?"
Yes. It's pretty hard to understand, I take it English isn't their primary language, so no fault of their own, but it doesn't exactly make it really clear; some of the commentary here did a better job of that.