Yes, I'm fairly well educated, and I have enough basic science knowledge to understand the AGW arguments reasonably well. Obviously, I'm no expert in the field, though.
There has been plenty of evidence to support AGW, both in terms of basic science and model validity. Ever since Svante Arrhenius, the basic science of how CO2 contributes to global temperatures has been known. More recently, studies have shown that predictions made from climate models of the 80s and 90s have largely borne out. Perhaps you're not familiar with these studies?
The "tweaking" of measuring stations has been downward, not upward, (to account for the urban heat island effect) so it hasn't exactly been in an effort to "fit the warming pattern". And, yes, the Southern hemisphere is not warming as fast as the Northern hemisphere—just as the models predict.
There have been no records of ships using the Northwest passage that did not involve either (a) overland passages, or (b) ice-breakers. If you'd like to prove me wrong, provide one such instance.
Do you disagree with any of this, or do I need to provide (additional) sources?
I'm guessing by your user ID that you've been here long enough to know how many different ways you're wrong (with such a short post, too!), but just in case:
The "talk" of a near-future Ice Age was from a few scientists and was not supported by the mainstream. Just like the "talk" today that there's no anthropogenic global warming.
The most recent sunspot minimum (2005) coincided with the hottest year ever recorded for our planet! (Or second-hottest, depending on which set of numbers you use. Also, just to head you off at the pass, note that I mentioned the planet and not just the United States.)
There is more than just "talk" of the ice caps melting. We just surpassed the previous minimum Arctic sea-ice records by more than 20%!! (Meanwhile, while the Antarctic sea-ice area reached a maximum, the total mass continues to decline.)
Of course, you probably know all this already. If not, and you'd like links for any of this, let me know.
Although it's true that providing soy milk to infant boys (and probably girls) is unwise, I've seen no evidence that it's bad for older boys. Also, I've seen no evidence that I've turned into a tranny despite having drunk about 1-2 liters of it a week for several years now!
For the majority of humans, milk is most likely worse for adults, as most of us have some degree of lactose intolerance. Also, calcium blocks the absorption of iron (leading to anemia), so regardless of your age, too much milk is definitely bad for you. I learned this this the hard way as a child who drank about a liter of milk per day! (It took a while for the doctor to ask the right question in analyzing where my anemia came from.)
You would think it would be cheaper to make, but shouldn't it be cheaper to buy, too? (I've replaced most of my milk consumption with soy milk. It has not helped the pocketbook any.)
I know, I know. They charge what the market will bear.
You're absolutely right. The angry, America farmers I know are angry about the subsidies being used to drive them out of business. (This might be partly due to their unwillingness to take the subsidies for themselves. These farmers do not necessarily represent an accurate sample.)
I can't disagree with that. When I said "unassailable", I meant unassailable through the use of logic and observation. Once you throw those out the window, all bets are off.
It was only meant as a joke, not a serious tin-foil hat theory! Yeah, I know—you like your jokes centered on reality, but there are plenty of good geek movies that continuously get the science wrong. I was already aware of all of the problems involved in a simple application of a space-based beaming weapon (although there are more complex applications that could be useful). Also, your over-simplification in the attempt to "correct" me really harms your case. Basically, what I'm saying is: if I'm not allowed a little license for the sake of a joke, then the terrorists have already won!
Although skeptical, I decided to do a little Google search to see if your information was accurate. I was surprised to find out that it is. (Surprised not because of you, personally, but because most unsourced claims on Slashdot turn out to be garbage.)
I'm not really comparing Moore to other documentaries, I'm really comparing recent Moore to Moore-classic (and An Inconvenient Truth). Each of Moore's documentaries seems to play a little looser with the facts than the previous one (although I haven't watched Sicko). I really liked Roger & Me and have nothing but praise for it. Bowling for Columbine took a few liberties but might not be worse than the "average documentary". Fahrenheit 9/11 bothered me with the liberties it took. I don't frequent Michael Moore "fact-check" sites, so I don't know what they're saying—I just know the things that struck me as wrong, which I then compared to what I found out through research to be, in fact, wrong. (It's been a while since I've watched it, so I could only give you a limited list if you're really interested.)
As for the seriousness of his mistakes as compared to Bush's mistakes, I agree completely. Moore's responsibility to truth is not as grave as Bush's. That said, his mistakes do undermine the cause he's trying to support, and, as such, he should try to remain ever vigilant.
Please don't lump those two together. Michael Moore's movies do tend to have a fair bit of misrepresentation in them. Perhaps not as much as a typical Bush/Cheney speech, but still...
I took his comment to mean that he did understand the whole thing, but still can't thinking of the statement and making the parody of a joke. I.e., he's laughing at those who think that Al Gore said he invented the internet and is not actually one of them himself. At least, that's how I interpret his statement.
The funny thing is the brain already is liquid-cooled. That liquid being the blood, of course. (Perhaps you were already going for this in your joke, but if so, it'll go over so many heads that I thought it worthwhile to explain it in more depth.)
4. Such person has been brainwashed quite thoroughly and it will take a lot of patience and understanding to get them through it. This includes a subset of people who see no reason to care about the whole debate to begin with.
5. Such person is still young and has much to learn. Insulting them is usually not a good method of instruction.
Justifiable censorship is still censorship. That last line merely states that the term "often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy." It is not a necessary criteria, however. Again, the company is probably completely justified in this particular form of censorship, but that doesn't stop it from being censorship. Perhaps the problem is that our culture has vilified censorship so much (usually for excellent reasons) that we have a hard time managing our cognitive dissonance when we agree with a form of it.
Yes, however, for daemons that don't run as root, the user cannot use the chroot command. Per the man page: "This command can be run only by the super-user."
Take a look at the Wikipedia article on it. I pointed out a few of the inconsistencies on the talk page, but I never had my concerns satisfactorily addressed. It wasn't for a lack of trying, it just seems that my complaint wasn't getting through -- or their explanations weren't getting through to me. As it's not high on my priority list, I dropped it. If it is high on your priority list, I suggest you help fix Wikipedia's article on it. Again, I have no beef with making our tax situation simpler, and the FairTax might be a good way to do it. Unfortunately, when it comes down to specifics, it seems that the proponents don't yet have all the answers, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
- There has been plenty of evidence to support AGW, both in terms of basic science and model validity. Ever since Svante Arrhenius, the basic science of how CO2 contributes to global temperatures has been known. More recently, studies have shown that predictions made from climate models of the 80s and 90s have largely borne out. Perhaps you're not familiar with these studies?
- The "tweaking" of measuring stations has been downward, not upward, (to account for the urban heat island effect) so it hasn't exactly been in an effort to "fit the warming pattern". And, yes, the Southern hemisphere is not warming as fast as the Northern hemisphere—just as the models predict.
- There have been no records of ships using the Northwest passage that did not involve either (a) overland passages, or (b) ice-breakers. If you'd like to prove me wrong, provide one such instance.
Do you disagree with any of this, or do I need to provide (additional) sources?- The "talk" of a near-future Ice Age was from a few scientists and was not supported by the mainstream. Just like the "talk" today that there's no anthropogenic global warming.
- The most recent sunspot minimum (2005) coincided with the hottest year ever recorded for our planet! (Or second-hottest, depending on which set of numbers you use. Also, just to head you off at the pass, note that I mentioned the planet and not just the United States.)
- There is more than just "talk" of the ice caps melting. We just surpassed the previous minimum Arctic sea-ice records by more than 20%!! (Meanwhile, while the Antarctic sea-ice area reached a maximum, the total mass continues to decline.)
Of course, you probably know all this already. If not, and you'd like links for any of this, let me know.Although it's true that providing soy milk to infant boys (and probably girls) is unwise, I've seen no evidence that it's bad for older boys. Also, I've seen no evidence that I've turned into a tranny despite having drunk about 1-2 liters of it a week for several years now!
For the majority of humans, milk is most likely worse for adults, as most of us have some degree of lactose intolerance. Also, calcium blocks the absorption of iron (leading to anemia), so regardless of your age, too much milk is definitely bad for you. I learned this this the hard way as a child who drank about a liter of milk per day! (It took a while for the doctor to ask the right question in analyzing where my anemia came from.)
You would think it would be cheaper to make, but shouldn't it be cheaper to buy, too? (I've replaced most of my milk consumption with soy milk. It has not helped the pocketbook any.)
I know, I know. They charge what the market will bear.
You're absolutely right. The angry, America farmers I know are angry about the subsidies being used to drive them out of business. (This might be partly due to their unwillingness to take the subsidies for themselves. These farmers do not necessarily represent an accurate sample.)
I can't disagree with that. When I said "unassailable", I meant unassailable through the use of logic and observation. Once you throw those out the window, all bets are off.
It was only meant as a joke, not a serious tin-foil hat theory! Yeah, I know—you like your jokes centered on reality, but there are plenty of good geek movies that continuously get the science wrong. I was already aware of all of the problems involved in a simple application of a space-based beaming weapon (although there are more complex applications that could be useful). Also, your over-simplification in the attempt to "correct" me really harms your case. Basically, what I'm saying is: if I'm not allowed a little license for the sake of a joke, then the terrorists have already won!
Because I can't imagine any other military application behind beaming 5-10 megawatts of power to a focused location...
Although that's arguably true, when you get your facts wrong, it tends to make it harder to convey that Truth...
Personally, I'm a big fan of unassailable facts—which, of course, have a well-known liberal bias!
Although skeptical, I decided to do a little Google search to see if your information was accurate. I was surprised to find out that it is. (Surprised not because of you, personally, but because most unsourced claims on Slashdot turn out to be garbage.)
Where are you getting that information? Last time I checked the committee had a strict policy about not releasing the list of nominees...
I'm not really comparing Moore to other documentaries, I'm really comparing recent Moore to Moore-classic (and An Inconvenient Truth). Each of Moore's documentaries seems to play a little looser with the facts than the previous one (although I haven't watched Sicko). I really liked Roger & Me and have nothing but praise for it. Bowling for Columbine took a few liberties but might not be worse than the "average documentary". Fahrenheit 9/11 bothered me with the liberties it took. I don't frequent Michael Moore "fact-check" sites, so I don't know what they're saying—I just know the things that struck me as wrong, which I then compared to what I found out through research to be, in fact, wrong. (It's been a while since I've watched it, so I could only give you a limited list if you're really interested.)
As for the seriousness of his mistakes as compared to Bush's mistakes, I agree completely. Moore's responsibility to truth is not as grave as Bush's. That said, his mistakes do undermine the cause he's trying to support, and, as such, he should try to remain ever vigilant.
You'll have to read the (comic) book.
Please don't lump those two together. Michael Moore's movies do tend to have a fair bit of misrepresentation in them. Perhaps not as much as a typical Bush/Cheney speech, but still...
I took his comment to mean that he did understand the whole thing, but still can't thinking of the statement and making the parody of a joke. I.e., he's laughing at those who think that Al Gore said he invented the internet and is not actually one of them himself. At least, that's how I interpret his statement.
After a while, all of the geeks will live on the moon, and they'll take their servers with them. Then, you will be the one with the huge latency!
The funny thing is the brain already is liquid-cooled. That liquid being the blood, of course. (Perhaps you were already going for this in your joke, but if so, it'll go over so many heads that I thought it worthwhile to explain it in more depth.)
4. Such person has been brainwashed quite thoroughly and it will take a lot of patience and understanding to get them through it. This includes a subset of people who see no reason to care about the whole debate to begin with. 5. Such person is still young and has much to learn. Insulting them is usually not a good method of instruction.
Justifiable censorship is still censorship. That last line merely states that the term "often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy." It is not a necessary criteria, however. Again, the company is probably completely justified in this particular form of censorship, but that doesn't stop it from being censorship. Perhaps the problem is that our culture has vilified censorship so much (usually for excellent reasons) that we have a hard time managing our cognitive dissonance when we agree with a form of it.
For some reason, I'm hearing banjo music...
I did not need that visual.
I was wondering how that statement made sense. Obviously, I've never used chroot. (Correctly or incorrectly.)
Yes, however, for daemons that don't run as root, the user cannot use the chroot command. Per the man page: "This command can be run only by the super-user."
Take a look at the Wikipedia article on it. I pointed out a few of the inconsistencies on the talk page, but I never had my concerns satisfactorily addressed. It wasn't for a lack of trying, it just seems that my complaint wasn't getting through -- or their explanations weren't getting through to me. As it's not high on my priority list, I dropped it. If it is high on your priority list, I suggest you help fix Wikipedia's article on it. Again, I have no beef with making our tax situation simpler, and the FairTax might be a good way to do it. Unfortunately, when it comes down to specifics, it seems that the proponents don't yet have all the answers, IMO.
However, very few people actually complain about that. Those that do, well, guess who gets audited next? ;)
Actually, my entire post was meant to be read with a tone of sarcasm, as the moderators who modded it funny evidently realized.