I think there's enough blame to go around. Just take a look at The EFF online free speech cases to see that there are lots of folks looking to suppress somebody's speech: corporations, government, schools, etc. And that's only online. Blaming only the left doesn't get close to covering the whole collection of people with an interest in keeping someone from saying something they don't especially like.
From TFA: Tedesco said if the variability were random, then over a 30-year period one would expect the record years to be evenly distributed
What absolute rubbish from yet another climate scientist who fails to understand random numbers. Random numbers does not mean "evenly distributed" numbers - especially over such a small sample size.
Except, the records years are extreme values. I wouldn't expect them to be distributed uniformly if the temperature fluctuations were uniformly random, i.e. drawn with a uniform random number generator around some mean temperature. If that were true, I'd expect the record years to be clumped closer to the beginning of the period. If there's an increasing trend, it should push the distribution of record years closer to the present. Record years, in that case, would seem more likely to be in the recent past than further back.
I've got a better idea. If an economy of trillions of dollars is threatened by something which has not been proven, then those doing the threatening should bear the burden of proof.
(Or, as a famous environmentalist once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.")
By the same token, it's not proven that an economy of trillions is threatened by reducing CO2 emissions. The notion that the economy is "threatened" by climate change or by attempting to cut emissions is a vague form of economic model. Economic models of what might happen if we try to reduce emissions have less rigor than climate models. It can be argued with just as much or perhaps more justification that developing energy efficiency and reducing emissions would have a positive effect on the economy.
> the U.S. government decided it was necessary to step in and pressure the Russians not to do this.
US secretly helps MasterCard And Visa. MasterCard and Visa decide to help the US shut down Wikileaks. Nice to know how it all works. Everybody wins, right?
The actions of MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon etc. are examples of the privatization of the suppression of dissent. The US, British, and French governments have been unable to legally do anything about Wikileaks and are likely to be unable to anything legally, because they have not committed a crime. The publication of leaked documents is not a crime. Instead like incarceration, many military and police operations, and security, suppression of undesirable information has been privatized. These companies have taken it upon themselves to enforce the new corporate order. Right now this suits the governments program, maybe later it won't.
>If you download his Insurance file or donate money to his site, expect to be put under intense surveilence COINTELPRO style.
Be afraid, censor yourself. I'm not saying that's your opinion, but it's sure the impression that certain powers want you to have. John Hancock signed the US declaration of independence in a big bold script to make sure the king could read it. We're under surveillance anyway, might as well be for a good reason.
This seems to me to be more evidence that governments and corporations see copyright only as a means to protect profits, not the rights of individual producers or "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." I wouldn't expect business to be interested anything except short term profits and I guess it's naive to expect a government to take a different view and consider what might be better in the long term.
It used to be believed that drug use led to music. There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others. Harry J. Anslinger (1892-1975) Assistant Prohibition Commissioner in the Bureau of Prohibition.
Now we know better, it's the other way around - aural experiences will act as a gateway to drug usage.
I know you were talking about communism, not socialism, but at least according to some measures there's more social mobility in socialist Norway than in the capitalist US. BBC News.
Sounds like marketing talk. The correlation between the data you can get from a DNA sample and the effects of your diet and lifestyle on your health is weak. Except for a very few cases of mutations in certain genes, genetic markers won't tell you more than you get from knowing your and parent's health history. As a special bonus, I'm offering free diet and lifestyle advice for UC Berkley students: eat moderately, don't drink to excess, don't smoke, wear your seatbelt. If they actually plan to use this data for anything, I hope the UC Berkley IRB expects more disclosure to the participants than that it will be used "to help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle."
I haven't had a chance to read the Nature article yet, but one of first tests you do when doing sequence analysis is to calculate the probability of finding a match as good or better than the one you just found in a random data set of the same size. If the probability of finding it in random data is larger than some cutoff (greater than say 10^(-3)), you reject the match. That doesn't guarantee that what you found is not random, but it sets an upper limit on the probability that it's just a random occurrence.
While the cracked e-mails don't reveal scientists at their best, I don't think they show that the observational data is a scam. If you have any evidence that any published data is a scam, falsified, or just plain wrong, publicize it.
DNA on a cigarette just led to an arrest in a 20 year old rape case. They had DNA and a partial fingerprint from the crime. The fingerprint pointed the cops to the guy and the State Police in New York secretly obtained his DNA off a discarded cigarette butt.
Lets face it ID's never going to get a fair shake from Darwinoids.
ID got a fair shake from the "Darwinoids". It didn't hold up as good science. It's not just that it's bad science. It's dead science. It was rejected as not fitting the data over 100 years ago.
We do the same, release the software under the GPL along with a request to cite the proper journal references. You can't really enforce that, but we seem to get plenty of citations, so I think it's an honor system that mostly works. When I review a paper, I try to make sure the authors cite the software they use and if the paper describes original software, they release it. I don't really trust the results from black-box software.
The various ways water vapor affects temperature are many and complex; so complex, in fact, that none of the computer models even pretend to take it into account because the formulas would take far too long to solve. Which, BTW, is one reason the computer models are unable to predict what's going on with any pretense of accuracy.
Googling for "climate models water vapor" yields 1,750,000 hits. Here's what RealClimate says:
Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing.
Any private company or citizen can censor all they want. The protections of free speech are toward the government NOT against free citizens or the companies they own.
Not quite. Suppose Flickr decided to remove any pictures of black people or catholics, do you think they would be exercising legitimate property rights? Do you think that they could get away with it? Property rights are not absolute. They can be trumped by other rights - free speech can be one of those rights. This case isn't so clear cut as many on/. claim. In the US, in 1980, the California Supreme Court became the first state high court to rule that under its own Constitution shopping malls were public forums. link Private property, but free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds great. I have been looking for some new sins. This might give me some ideas. It sounds like a wonderful source of original sins.
I think there's enough blame to go around. Just take a look at The EFF online free speech cases to see that there are lots of folks looking to suppress somebody's speech: corporations, government, schools, etc. And that's only online. Blaming only the left doesn't get close to covering the whole collection of people with an interest in keeping someone from saying something they don't especially like.
From TFA: Tedesco said if the variability were random, then over a 30-year period one would expect the record years to be evenly distributed
What absolute rubbish from yet another climate scientist who fails to understand random numbers. Random numbers does not mean "evenly distributed" numbers - especially over such a small sample size.
Except, the records years are extreme values. I wouldn't expect them to be distributed uniformly if the temperature fluctuations were uniformly random, i.e. drawn with a uniform random number generator around some mean temperature. If that were true, I'd expect the record years to be clumped closer to the beginning of the period. If there's an increasing trend, it should push the distribution of record years closer to the present. Record years, in that case, would seem more likely to be in the recent past than further back.
The pseudocode for LOIC is: /. about Amazon being shutdown /.'ers rush to amazon.com to see if it's true
1. Post article on
2.
3. Success!
I've got a better idea. If an economy of trillions of dollars is threatened by something which has not been proven, then those doing the threatening should bear the burden of proof.
(Or, as a famous environmentalist once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.")
By the same token, it's not proven that an economy of trillions is threatened by reducing CO2 emissions. The notion that the economy is "threatened" by climate change or by attempting to cut emissions is a vague form of economic model. Economic models of what might happen if we try to reduce emissions have less rigor than climate models. It can be argued with just as much or perhaps more justification that developing energy efficiency and reducing emissions would have a positive effect on the economy.
> the U.S. government decided it was necessary to step in and pressure the Russians not to do this.
US secretly helps MasterCard And Visa. MasterCard and Visa decide to help the US shut down Wikileaks. Nice to know how it all works. Everybody wins, right?
The actions of MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon etc. are examples of the privatization of the suppression of dissent. The US, British, and French governments have been unable to legally do anything about Wikileaks and are likely to be unable to anything legally, because they have not committed a crime. The publication of leaked documents is not a crime. Instead like incarceration, many military and police operations, and security, suppression of undesirable information has been privatized. These companies have taken it upon themselves to enforce the new corporate order. Right now this suits the governments program, maybe later it won't.
>If you download his Insurance file or donate money to his site, expect to be put under intense surveilence COINTELPRO style.
Be afraid, censor yourself. I'm not saying that's your opinion, but it's sure the impression that certain powers want you to have. John Hancock signed the US declaration of independence in a big bold script to make sure the king could read it. We're under surveillance anyway, might as well be for a good reason.
Maybe 52 is the age not the volume number.
Translation: I am bought and paid for so screw you.
That's an honest politician - when he's bought, he stays bought.
This seems to me to be more evidence that governments and corporations see copyright only as a means to protect profits, not the rights of individual producers or "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." I wouldn't expect business to be interested anything except short term profits and I guess it's naive to expect a government to take a different view and consider what might be better in the long term.
blazay = blasé + lazy or maybe blasé + sleazy
It used to be believed that drug use led to music. There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others. Harry J. Anslinger (1892-1975) Assistant Prohibition Commissioner in the Bureau of Prohibition.
Now we know better, it's the other way around - aural experiences will act as a gateway to drug usage.
You're right. The US isn't really completely capitalist either. It's a matter of degree.
I know you were talking about communism, not socialism, but at least according to some measures there's more social mobility in socialist Norway than in the capitalist US. BBC News.
Sounds like marketing talk. The correlation between the data you can get from a DNA sample and the effects of your diet and lifestyle on your health is weak. Except for a very few cases of mutations in certain genes, genetic markers won't tell you more than you get from knowing your and parent's health history. As a special bonus, I'm offering free diet and lifestyle advice for UC Berkley students: eat moderately, don't drink to excess, don't smoke, wear your seatbelt. If they actually plan to use this data for anything, I hope the UC Berkley IRB expects more disclosure to the participants than that it will be used "to help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle."
I haven't had a chance to read the Nature article yet, but one of first tests you do when doing sequence analysis is to calculate the probability of finding a match as good or better than the one you just found in a random data set of the same size. If the probability of finding it in random data is larger than some cutoff (greater than say 10^(-3)), you reject the match. That doesn't guarantee that what you found is not random, but it sets an upper limit on the probability that it's just a random occurrence.
While the cracked e-mails don't reveal scientists at their best, I don't think they show that the observational data is a scam. If you have any evidence that any published data is a scam, falsified, or just plain wrong, publicize it.
DNA on a cigarette just led to an arrest in a 20 year old rape case. They had DNA and a partial fingerprint from the crime. The fingerprint pointed the cops to the guy and the State Police in New York secretly obtained his DNA off a discarded cigarette butt.
In the MS virtual world, you will have two choices of avatar. One will look like Clippy and the other will be Bob.
Lets face it ID's never going to get a fair shake from Darwinoids.
ID got a fair shake from the "Darwinoids". It didn't hold up as good science. It's not just that it's bad science. It's dead science. It was rejected as not fitting the data over 100 years ago.
From TFA Some subjects were told to act shifty, be evasive, deceptive and hostile. And many were detected.
Seems like they have invented a method to detect bad actors. How do they train it on real terrorists?
We do the same, release the software under the GPL along with a request to cite the proper journal references. You can't really enforce that, but we seem to get plenty of citations, so I think it's an honor system that mostly works. When I review a paper, I try to make sure the authors cite the software they use and if the paper describes original software, they release it. I don't really trust the results from black-box software.
The various ways water vapor affects temperature are many and complex; so complex, in fact, that none of the computer models even pretend to take it into account because the formulas would take far too long to solve. Which, BTW, is one reason the computer models are unable to predict what's going on with any pretense of accuracy.
Googling for "climate models water vapor" yields 1,750,000 hits. Here's what RealClimate says:
Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing.
Seems like water vapor is included in the models.
Any private company or citizen can censor all they want. The protections of free speech are toward the government NOT against free citizens or the companies they own.
/. claim. In the US, in 1980, the California Supreme Court became the first state high court to rule that under its own Constitution shopping malls were public forums. link Private property, but free speech.
Not quite. Suppose Flickr decided to remove any pictures of black people or catholics, do you think they would be exercising legitimate property rights? Do you think that they could get away with it? Property rights are not absolute. They can be trumped by other rights - free speech can be one of those rights. This case isn't so clear cut as many on