Not remotely, and your naive if you think that's what happens.
You see 85% of revenues doesn't mean 85% of the money they take in. It just means 85% of what their reported revenue is. Anyone who has any familiarity with wall street knows full well that there are countless loopholes and strategies that can be used to hide revenues and shift money around to make things more favorable to a corporation. Then of course there is all the contract gotchas and shady interpretations that they apply to deny people coverage. They drop their apparent revenue just enough to show an 85% payout, then keep the rest shifted or hidden amongst other assets.
Cynical? Perhaps. But only fools think that insurance companies are out to help people. They are out to make profit.
Open government? Informed populace? Now why the hell would any news organization want that? Where's the profit without the FUD, hype, and a populace with play-dough like critical thinking capabilities?
You want real news? Sorry kids, but that went out the door a long time ago. Now you have "infotainment", which is sort of like watching pro-wrestling only it kills your braincells and may occasionally throw in a word longer than two syllables to make you feel edumacated and smert.
It's actually gone beyond infotainment and is now heading comfortably into maniputainment.
Agreed. Porn is. So putting porn videos on wikipedia would be the killer app.
Natalie Portman, naked, petrified, hot grits, now featured on the Elemental Chart on wikipedia. Nerd nirvana. Or if your feeling less pure, Mila Jovavich naked and shellacked, covered in hot corn nuts doing a spread on the Actinide series. Though really, she's been naked in so much I don't even think that's porn anymore.
No, they've created a regulatory framework to prevent mining companies from leaving highly concentrated piles of toxic crap where ever they feel like, including the local water table.
What's the cost of something like a value meal? It's like $2 or $3.
Where I am the head of lettuce alone is $2.00 a head and a head makes decent salad for two. Start throwing everything else on the pile (chicken, tomatoes, carrots, etc) and suddenly that value meal is either just as much or cheaper.
In fact, I regularly eat salads and depending on sales the materials to make a decent salad for two run about $10.
Perhaps you're thinking of a little table salad as opposed to a salad you would eat for a meal?
Good for you if you live in area with lower prices. But low produce prices are NOT universal across the country.
A wager made ahead of it's time, and hardly conclusive proof that we have X amount of land, Y amount of oil, etc. etc..
So our resources are infinite? Are you expecting technology to constantly make up the shortfall?
Sure enough things eventually balance out in the end. Of course, balancing out can mean many things, including massive war, famine, genocide, etc.. Now why do you think that is? Because no plans are made for sustainability.
There are plenty of plans for growth and consumption, but no plans for how to sustain society once we get there. It's like credit card with the bill due at some distant point in the future.
Except we're starting to see just a little bit of that future right now. 6 billion people with more and more people consuming like western civilization. It's a slow motion trainwreck.
You want to know what the difference is between society "hundreds of years ago" and today? About 5 billion people and more ways to kill ourselves.
By the way, I'm not worried about the Earth. I'm worried about the Earth's ability to support our civilization. We're starting the downhill slide. Soon, the two most populated countries in the world are going to start trying to have a standard of living like the rest of the Western world.
But continue to wave your hand at the real world, because problems are always magically solved for you.
The world has a pool of resources. The population is increasing. The resources are diminishing.
You can:
1. Basically say fuck you to everyone. That's what you're post is saying. Survival of the fittest. Do whatever you want, consequences be damned. Consume, pillage, and plunder resources BECAUSE YOU CAN. Fuck the people, fuck the world, and fuck the future. Burn the world for your pleasure and let other people figure out what to do when all there is are ashes.
2. Think for 10 seconds and realize that there won't be a future if we don't start thinking about long term solutions to problems that we're already seeing now. We only have so many resources and as population increases those resources are going to dwindle faster and faster. If we want to remain comfortable on our ball of rock we really need to start focusing on long term sustainability.
Communism? Bullshit. This is common sense. Our policies right now are NOT sustainable.
You're like a teenager. Go out and play. In the meantime the adults will try to figure out how we can still be here in another 1000 years.
Here's the problem. Scientists are not PR specialist. Nor do they receive funds in anything like the amounts necessary for a any sort of PR campaign. However, those with vested interests in discrediting climate science have buckets of cash to wage a PR war.
Shout out enough lies long enough and soon they are the truth. This happened with smoking, acid rain, and the ozone hole. Trying to wage a campaign to prove you're right is the surest way to fail, and scientist seem to know how to do this in spades.
You don't win a PR war by convincing people you are right. You wage an effective PR war by discrediting your opponent and appealing to emotion. You attack by coming up with half-truths that have just enough believability or statements that make just enough sense to the layperson that you get people wondering. Once the cracks are there, you just keep hammering. Soon, you can start making more and more outrageous claims. People will no longer question anything you say because your opponent can't or doesn't respond fast enough or doesn't respond in a manner that isn't easily digestible into sound bites.
At that point, your opponent is finished. Nothing on $DIETY's green earth will ever convince the people your opponent is correct even if they have a 10 PB data center full of research and data to back up their claim and the pope to boot.
The scientist have lost and will continue to lose the PR side until the adapt the tactics every other mud-slinger out there uses. One can only hope that saner more logical minds listen to the experts in the field rather than Joe Teabagger.
I think Australia might argue that they weren't in much of a cool pattern. Temperatures in Alaska and Greenland were downright balmy compared to the eastern seaboard.
Globally temperatures were above the norm in January. This has contributed to increased moisture content of the atmosphere and more precipitation.
BUT, the main culprits for our weather has been the strong El Nino as well as a strongly negative NAO. These are meteorological events, though they could be influenced by climate change.
Since climate scales are years to centuries you can't pin any weather event or set of weather events on climate change. Now if this becomes a regular thing over the next decade then you can start the hypothesizing about links to climate change.
Damn it, why don't people like you spend about an hour reading about climatological processes before spewing yet more idiotic statements?
Look, water vapor by volume is a STRONGER green house gas. But it is a SHORT-LIVED greenhouse gas. The water cycle is very fast so it takes a lot of energy to increase it appreciably over a long period of time.
The problem comes with LONG-LIVED greenhouse gases like CO2. It's currently estimated that the carbon cycle on Earth is 100-150 years. There isn't anything absorbing the additional CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere, and the CO2 records are very clearly showing this.
There ARE more potent greenhouse gases than CO2, but CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a LONG time. Then it's thermodynamics.
The older I get the more I wonder about the relationships in our Universe. Now, it may just be cognitive cob-webs but who is to actually say that God is not waiting for us beyond the last theorem?
Because that would imply that some short lived self assembling carbon matrices who can't even get off their own speck of dust in the ass crack of a rather run-of-the-mill galaxy should somehow be important enough to have some super omnipotent being give a rat's ass about. Compared to the universe, we are incredibly non-important and any "God" that did create the universe would no more care about us than you would care about a particular photon emitting from your screen.
Physics is not complete yet so isn't it hubris to proclaim that there is no God without a complete understanding of where our Universe came from?
No, it's hubris to assume we have some sort of cosmic significance. Which we wouldn't, given the sheer size and scope of the universe.
I am finding it more difficult to remain an atheist to the point that I have become an igtheist [wikipedia.org] as I have gained more life experience.
I don't follow how life experiences = proof of diety's existence unless said diety came out of the sky and demonstrated to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it as indeed god. Life experiences are entirely too subjective for proof of much.
Just because most of what the world pushes on you as the concept of "God" is complete crap does not mean that "God" does not exist
On the contrary, I think it's pretty reassuring evidence that God doesn't exist. Certainly no supernatural diety would be so twisted as to let such an important creation such as ourselves happily continue to hit others with their clubs in the name of righteousness.
At this moment the only logical, if not scientific, position is that god does not exist. I find the prospect of god existing given the state of our world a depressing if not horrifying prospect.
The definition is where the meat lies.
And what possible definition can be ascribed to an omnipotent universe creating diety? Talk about hubris! How could we possibly begin to even get a small glimmer of understanding about a being so powerful and beyond us in every way that we could even attempt to define it?
Perhaps someday physics will be complete assuming the incompletness theorem doesn't prevent that and we will know for sure
No. We won't. You cannot prove or disprove mythical imaginary beings because they are not logical. There is no scientific experiment you can set up. And even if we could, how the hell do you construct an experiment to measure the existence of a being that can create universes out of nothing? It's not like you can put it in a box and shoot lasers at it. A being like that would be immesurable to any of the laws of physics in this universe, simply because it is beyond any limitations our universe would have.
Until then, don't be so cock-eyed and smug in your "logical" denial.
I think there is more to worry about from god supporters than the god deniers. But that's just me.
How about municipalities, just to start things off? Then there are the insurance companies. Then construction companies. Of course, there is the military as well. Farmers. Etc., etc. etc. .
A lot of people and money can be saved with knowledge about the climate and future climate. However, at this time getting specific information about a particular area can be difficult, if not impossible. The whole point of this service is to aggregate the information so that it can be available for access for people to make better decisions and better preparations.
Your post boils down to arguments that really show nothing other than your complete lack of understanding in regards to climate science and models. The only source of repute you point to is the loc, and even then you highly distort the point.
People like you are exactly the reason why the scientific community believes it is wasting its time trying to reach out the general populace. It's not so much not understanding as not wanting to understand, or worse, actively and willingly sabotaging any intelligent discussions.
If you really want to build a strong case against climate change, how about using some real studies to back up your claims. Fox news and the telegraph do not count. Put up some peer reviewed studies, or better yet how about a model that shows that adding more greenhouse gases do not impact the climate?
Any idiot can be a loud mouthed critic. Just look at Glen Beck. However science requires some actual facts and research.
This is the reason why scientist feel they are wasting their time engaging the public.
You clearly already have your mind set in stone. You've got the whole thing figured out backed by 100% solid conspiracy theories. No amount of data, review, validation or verification will change your mind.
It doesn't matter if the code is open. You don't care. You're not going to look at it because is so much easier to wrap yourself in a blanket of your own crazy world view and discredit anything that might just impact your comfy existence.
In fact, the arctic could melt completely and 20% of Florida could go underwater and you'd still deny anything was happening or that anything should be done about it.
Scientists would just be wasting valuable resources in dealing with people like yourself. Just like democrats would be wasting their time talking at a Tea Party convention, or Republicans would be wasting their time at a MoveOn.org convention.
You will not be convinced. Ever. Like most followers of McIntyre and Watts. It doesn't matter what the scientists do it will never be enough. Even God itself would not convince you otherwise.
Fortunately, the research will continue with or without your support.
So let's say I supply the source code and you run it and get the same answers. That has proved jack shit.
Research papers provide the ways and means, including algorithms, for the work being reviewed. The reviewers are responsible for verifying the research. Handing them the source you used it counter productive at best, as it does nothing to validate the research. If you implement code following the means and methods in the paper and you find the answers are different, then you have potentially found a flaw.
If you can't recreate the program from what's in the paper in a reasonable amount of time, then either the paper is lacking critical information or you don't have the understanding you need to legitimately review the research. A lot of papers in regards to climate research already make assumptions that the readers have a fairly good understanding of climate dynamics. And most code used to support these papers are fairly short as well. In fact, I'm using several papers in my current work which describe algorithms which each one can be written in less than 100 lines of code.
The discussion in scientific circles is constructive.
The quasi/anti-science mad-dog drivel that makes up almost all the rest of the discussion is what they're circling the wagons about. It's like having Joe Sixpack looking come into your workplace screaming that your professional work is bullshit and you should be fired.
And actually having people in power listen to him.
I think the world is very lucky that Linus Torvalds wasn't as narrow-sighted and conceited as you are
Linus Torvalds was writing an operating system, software intended for a general computing audience. Something like a climate model has a very exclusive audience and requires that the users have a deep understanding about the subject. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Have you heard of "ivory tower"? You're it.
Your position basically boils down to this: "unless you read all the same things I read, talked to all the same people I talked to, went to all the same schools I did... you're not qualified to talk to me".
That is _the_ definition of monocultural isolationism.. i.e. the Ivory Tower of Academia problem.
No, what he saying is that unless you have an education in the subject material then you're not going to understand what is going on. Have you ever had to explain to anyone that those programming montages in certain movies really are not accurate? It's sort of like that.
Sure, you can decipher the code if you're a programmer, but you may not know WHY they are doing the things they are doing. Naively going through a code base with an engineering ax without understanding what the code is doing is a sure way to seriously screw things up.
As a specific counterpoint to your way of thinking...
That's not a counterpoint. You're proving his point. You're a software engineer working hand in hand with the "expert". But that's not the issue. The problem is having every idiot who thinks they're $DIETY's gift to programming come through a scientific codebase and expecting said scientist to do tech support, which they would have to as they may be the only one who understands what they did. This is a waste of time for said scientist, as their primary job is research, not conducting Fluid Dynamics 101. And a lot of the codes written are one-time solutions for a particular bit of research.
Seriously, if you want to invalidate some results read the papers you want to attack and duplicate their algorithms in whatever programming language you want to use to prove that their wrong. Most code used in scientific papers are fairly short. Plus, doing and independent implementation helps further validate the research. What's the point of using their code? It's going to give you the same answers. Write your own, then you can be sure it was done "right".
There is a huge difference between a cellphone and WiFi. First, a cellphone can transmit up to 5 Watts. I can actually hear noise induced in my computer speakers every 10 minutes if the cellphone is nearby when it does it automatic call-home.
That's incorrect. The average cell phone these days uses 250 milliwatts. Even the ancient giganto phones used 3 watts. At 5 watts, you're cell phone battery would be depleted very quickly and just about anything ithin your immediate vicinity that wasn't heavily shielded would have more than minor interference. The reason you hear it in your computer speakers is because they aren't well shielded. Or, more lilkley, the cable running from your computer to your speakers isn't well shielded. So your calculations are off by quite a bit.
Sure, it's still more than wifi but the cell phone signal needs to make it farther. But you also seem to be forgetting the cellphone radiation is non-ionizing and doesn't have the energy to break a carbon bond, let alone do anything else.
You clearly have no grasp of meteorology vs. climatology. Because if you did you'd understand that modeling chaotic small scale systems is far more difficult than modeling generl large scale ones.
For example, I can tell you with a fair amount of accuracy that the temperatures in the northern hemisphere in January are colder than December. I can also give a fairly accurate oaverage monthly temperature for those two months as well. However, I couldn't tell you what the temperature would be on January 1, 2011 with any sort of accuracy.
But let's look at a simpler case: a balloon. I couldn't tell you with any accuracy where a articular molecule of air would be inside that balloon at any given moment, But I can, using basic physics and the surrounding conditions, tell you about how big that balloon would be.
ALL MODELS ARE WRONG! By definition, they have to be since they are simulations of complex scenarios. However, models are useful as you can run them thousands of times (known as an ensemble) and, knowing the error bounds you can get a reasonable likely scenario. This is what they do with the climate models. And despite the varying climate models, data files, and error bars they all show the same thing: the temperature will increase with increased CO2.
Saying a model is wrong is redundant. Saying a model is invalid is something entirely different.
I think you have it incorrect. This is how it went down.
McIntyre: You guys are full of shit. You're lying to fulfill your own agendas. Give me your research. Scientists: You can look at the peer-reviewed articles. McIntyre: I've got a geoscience degree, so I should get it for free. Including all your source code and data provided by proprietary sources. Scientists: No, because that would waste of our time and money responding to your requests and we can't give out data from proprietary sources as that would violate contractual observations. McIntyre: HA! Cover up! Cover up! You don't want to give it to me because you're lying sacks of shit! Scientists: No we've already explained this. If the research articles and the data available with those articles are not enough for you then our conversation is over. McIntyre: No it isn't! I'll send a billion FOIA requests! I'll find every little tiny insignificant error and blow it way out of proportion! I will gather the idiot masses behind me and hound you until my ego orgasms from my own self-importance! Scientists: Good day Mr. McIntyre. McIntyre: It's ours!, The precious is ours! They tooks it from us, and we wants it back!...
Slashdot Mirror
Not remotely, and your naive if you think that's what happens.
You see 85% of revenues doesn't mean 85% of the money they take in. It just means 85% of what their reported revenue is. Anyone who has any familiarity with wall street knows full well that there are countless loopholes and strategies that can be used to hide revenues and shift money around to make things more favorable to a corporation. Then of course there is all the contract gotchas and shady interpretations that they apply to deny people coverage. They drop their apparent revenue just enough to show an 85% payout, then keep the rest shifted or hidden amongst other assets.
Cynical? Perhaps. But only fools think that insurance companies are out to help people. They are out to make profit.
~X~
Open government? Informed populace? Now why the hell would any news organization want that? Where's the profit without the FUD, hype, and a populace with play-dough like critical thinking capabilities?
You want real news? Sorry kids, but that went out the door a long time ago. Now you have "infotainment", which is sort of like watching pro-wrestling only it kills your braincells and may occasionally throw in a word longer than two syllables to make you feel edumacated and smert.
It's actually gone beyond infotainment and is now heading comfortably into maniputainment.
~X~
Agreed. Porn is. So putting porn videos on wikipedia would be the killer app.
Natalie Portman, naked, petrified, hot grits, now featured on the Elemental Chart on wikipedia. Nerd nirvana. Or if your feeling less pure, Mila Jovavich naked and shellacked, covered in hot corn nuts doing a spread on the Actinide series. Though really, she's been naked in so much I don't even think that's porn anymore.
~X~
And when the pie is all gone?
We eat cake.
~X~
No, they've created a regulatory framework to prevent mining companies from leaving highly concentrated piles of toxic crap where ever they feel like, including the local water table.
~X~
Thank you for that foray into naivete.
What's the cost of something like a value meal? It's like $2 or $3.
Where I am the head of lettuce alone is $2.00 a head and a head makes decent salad for two. Start throwing everything else on the pile (chicken, tomatoes, carrots, etc) and suddenly that value meal is either just as much or cheaper.
In fact, I regularly eat salads and depending on sales the materials to make a decent salad for two run about $10.
Perhaps you're thinking of a little table salad as opposed to a salad you would eat for a meal?
Good for you if you live in area with lower prices. But low produce prices are NOT universal across the country.
~X~
While I agree that the proposed legislation is stupid, McDonald's is usually cheaper than buying produce in a lot of areas.
Cheap beats healthy when you don't have a lot of cash.
~X~
Economic viability is perhaps one of the greatest oppressors of progress. It is a poor metric for determining what is best.
Be that as it may, the most economically viable option is conservation. But good luck convincing the "Drill Baby Drill" people of that.
~X~
What are you, crazy? This is slashdot! You stop, drop, and TROLL!
~X~
A wager made ahead of it's time, and hardly conclusive proof that we have X amount of land, Y amount of oil, etc. etc..
So our resources are infinite? Are you expecting technology to constantly make up the shortfall?
Sure enough things eventually balance out in the end. Of course, balancing out can mean many things, including massive war, famine, genocide, etc.. Now why do you think that is? Because no plans are made for sustainability.
There are plenty of plans for growth and consumption, but no plans for how to sustain society once we get there. It's like credit card with the bill due at some distant point in the future.
Except we're starting to see just a little bit of that future right now. 6 billion people with more and more people consuming like western civilization. It's a slow motion trainwreck.
You want to know what the difference is between society "hundreds of years ago" and today? About 5 billion people and more ways to kill ourselves.
By the way, I'm not worried about the Earth. I'm worried about the Earth's ability to support our civilization. We're starting the downhill slide. Soon, the two most populated countries in the world are going to start trying to have a standard of living like the rest of the Western world.
But continue to wave your hand at the real world, because problems are always magically solved for you.
~X~
Talk about fear mongering ignorance.
The world has a pool of resources. The population is increasing. The resources are diminishing.
You can:
1. Basically say fuck you to everyone. That's what you're post is saying. Survival of the fittest. Do whatever you want, consequences be damned. Consume, pillage, and plunder resources BECAUSE YOU CAN. Fuck the people, fuck the world, and fuck the future. Burn the world for your pleasure and let other people figure out what to do when all there is are ashes.
2. Think for 10 seconds and realize that there won't be a future if we don't start thinking about long term solutions to problems that we're already seeing now. We only have so many resources and as population increases those resources are going to dwindle faster and faster. If we want to remain comfortable on our ball of rock we really need to start focusing on long term sustainability.
Communism? Bullshit. This is common sense. Our policies right now are NOT sustainable.
You're like a teenager. Go out and play. In the meantime the adults will try to figure out how we can still be here in another 1000 years.
~X~
Here's the problem. Scientists are not PR specialist. Nor do they receive funds in anything like the amounts necessary for a any sort of PR campaign. However, those with vested interests in discrediting climate science have buckets of cash to wage a PR war.
Shout out enough lies long enough and soon they are the truth. This happened with smoking, acid rain, and the ozone hole. Trying to wage a campaign to prove you're right is the surest way to fail, and scientist seem to know how to do this in spades.
You don't win a PR war by convincing people you are right. You wage an effective PR war by discrediting your opponent and appealing to emotion. You attack by coming up with half-truths that have just enough believability or statements that make just enough sense to the layperson that you get people wondering. Once the cracks are there, you just keep hammering. Soon, you can start making more and more outrageous claims. People will no longer question anything you say because your opponent can't or doesn't respond fast enough or doesn't respond in a manner that isn't easily digestible into sound bites.
At that point, your opponent is finished. Nothing on $DIETY's green earth will ever convince the people your opponent is correct even if they have a 10 PB data center full of research and data to back up their claim and the pope to boot.
The scientist have lost and will continue to lose the PR side until the adapt the tactics every other mud-slinger out there uses. One can only hope that saner more logical minds listen to the experts in the field rather than Joe Teabagger.
~X~
Cool pattern for who?
I think Australia might argue that they weren't in much of a cool pattern. Temperatures in Alaska and Greenland were downright balmy compared to the eastern seaboard.
Globally temperatures were above the norm in January. This has contributed to increased moisture content of the atmosphere and more precipitation.
BUT, the main culprits for our weather has been the strong El Nino as well as a strongly negative NAO. These are meteorological events, though they could be influenced by climate change.
Since climate scales are years to centuries you can't pin any weather event or set of weather events on climate change. Now if this becomes a regular thing over the next decade then you can start the hypothesizing about links to climate change.
~X~
Damn it, why don't people like you spend about an hour reading about climatological processes before spewing yet more idiotic statements?
Look, water vapor by volume is a STRONGER green house gas. But it is a SHORT-LIVED greenhouse gas. The water cycle is very fast so it takes a lot of energy to increase it appreciably over a long period of time.
The problem comes with LONG-LIVED greenhouse gases like CO2. It's currently estimated that the carbon cycle on Earth is 100-150 years. There isn't anything absorbing the additional CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere, and the CO2 records are very clearly showing this.
There ARE more potent greenhouse gases than CO2, but CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a LONG time. Then it's thermodynamics.
~X~
The older I get the more I wonder about the relationships in our Universe. Now, it may just be cognitive cob-webs but who is to actually say that God is not waiting for us beyond the last theorem?
Because that would imply that some short lived self assembling carbon matrices who can't even get off their own speck of dust in the ass crack of a rather run-of-the-mill galaxy should somehow be important enough to have some super omnipotent being give a rat's ass about. Compared to the universe, we are incredibly non-important and any "God" that did create the universe would no more care about us than you would care about a particular photon emitting from your screen.
Physics is not complete yet so isn't it hubris to proclaim that there is no God without a complete understanding of where our Universe came from?
No, it's hubris to assume we have some sort of cosmic significance. Which we wouldn't, given the sheer size and scope of the universe.
I am finding it more difficult to remain an atheist to the point that I have become an igtheist [wikipedia.org] as I have gained more life experience.
I don't follow how life experiences = proof of diety's existence unless said diety came out of the sky and demonstrated to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it as indeed god. Life experiences are entirely too subjective for proof of much.
Just because most of what the world pushes on you as the concept of "God" is complete crap does not mean that "God" does not exist
On the contrary, I think it's pretty reassuring evidence that God doesn't exist. Certainly no supernatural diety would be so twisted as to let such an important creation such as ourselves happily continue to hit others with their clubs in the name of righteousness.
At this moment the only logical, if not scientific, position is that god does not exist. I find the prospect of god existing given the state of our world a depressing if not horrifying prospect.
The definition is where the meat lies.
And what possible definition can be ascribed to an omnipotent universe creating diety? Talk about hubris! How could we possibly begin to even get a small glimmer of understanding about a being so powerful and beyond us in every way that we could even attempt to define it?
Perhaps someday physics will be complete assuming the incompletness theorem doesn't prevent that and we will know for sure
No. We won't. You cannot prove or disprove mythical imaginary beings because they are not logical. There is no scientific experiment you can set up. And even if we could, how the hell do you construct an experiment to measure the existence of a being that can create universes out of nothing? It's not like you can put it in a box and shoot lasers at it. A being like that would be immesurable to any of the laws of physics in this universe, simply because it is beyond any limitations our universe would have.
Until then, don't be so cock-eyed and smug in your "logical" denial.
I think there is more to worry about from god supporters than the god deniers. But that's just me.
~X~
Right after they come out with a "fucking idiot" mod.
That's perhaps a bit harsh. How about a "Doesn't Understand Basic Physics" mod?
~X~
How the hell is this insightful?
How about municipalities, just to start things off? Then there are the insurance companies. Then construction companies. Of course, there is the military as well. Farmers. Etc., etc. etc. .
A lot of people and money can be saved with knowledge about the climate and future climate. However, at this time getting specific information about a particular area can be difficult, if not impossible. The whole point of this service is to aggregate the information so that it can be available for access for people to make better decisions and better preparations.
~X~
Your post boils down to arguments that really show nothing other than your complete lack of understanding in regards to climate science and models. The only source of repute you point to is the loc, and even then you highly distort the point.
People like you are exactly the reason why the scientific community believes it is wasting its time trying to reach out the general populace. It's not so much not understanding as not wanting to understand, or worse, actively and willingly sabotaging any intelligent discussions.
If you really want to build a strong case against climate change, how about using some real studies to back up your claims. Fox news and the telegraph do not count. Put up some peer reviewed studies, or better yet how about a model that shows that adding more greenhouse gases do not impact the climate?
Any idiot can be a loud mouthed critic. Just look at Glen Beck. However science requires some actual facts and research.
~X~
This is the reason why scientist feel they are wasting their time engaging the public.
You clearly already have your mind set in stone. You've got the whole thing figured out backed by 100% solid conspiracy theories. No amount of data, review, validation or verification will change your mind.
It doesn't matter if the code is open. You don't care. You're not going to look at it because is so much easier to wrap yourself in a blanket of your own crazy world view and discredit anything that might just impact your comfy existence.
In fact, the arctic could melt completely and 20% of Florida could go underwater and you'd still deny anything was happening or that anything should be done about it.
Scientists would just be wasting valuable resources in dealing with people like yourself. Just like democrats would be wasting their time talking at a Tea Party convention, or Republicans would be wasting their time at a MoveOn.org convention.
You will not be convinced. Ever. Like most followers of McIntyre and Watts. It doesn't matter what the scientists do it will never be enough. Even God itself would not convince you otherwise.
Fortunately, the research will continue with or without your support.
~X~
So let's say I supply the source code and you run it and get the same answers. That has proved jack shit.
Research papers provide the ways and means, including algorithms, for the work being reviewed. The reviewers are responsible for verifying the research. Handing them the source you used it counter productive at best, as it does nothing to validate the research. If you implement code following the means and methods in the paper and you find the answers are different, then you have potentially found a flaw.
If you can't recreate the program from what's in the paper in a reasonable amount of time, then either the paper is lacking critical information or you don't have the understanding you need to legitimately review the research. A lot of papers in regards to climate research already make assumptions that the readers have a fairly good understanding of climate dynamics. And most code used to support these papers are fairly short as well. In fact, I'm using several papers in my current work which describe algorithms which each one can be written in less than 100 lines of code.
~X~
The discussion in scientific circles is constructive.
The quasi/anti-science mad-dog drivel that makes up almost all the rest of the discussion is what they're circling the wagons about. It's like having Joe Sixpack looking come into your workplace screaming that your professional work is bullshit and you should be fired.
And actually having people in power listen to him.
~X~
I think the world is very lucky that Linus Torvalds wasn't as narrow-sighted and conceited as you are
Linus Torvalds was writing an operating system, software intended for a general computing audience. Something like a climate model has a very exclusive audience and requires that the users have a deep understanding about the subject. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Have you heard of "ivory tower"? You're it.
Your position basically boils down to this: "unless you read all the same things I read, talked to all the same people I talked to, went to all the same schools I did... you're not qualified to talk to me".
That is _the_ definition of monocultural isolationism.. i.e. the Ivory Tower of Academia problem.
No, what he saying is that unless you have an education in the subject material then you're not going to understand what is going on. Have you ever had to explain to anyone that those programming montages in certain movies really are not accurate? It's sort of like that.
Sure, you can decipher the code if you're a programmer, but you may not know WHY they are doing the things they are doing. Naively going through a code base with an engineering ax without understanding what the code is doing is a sure way to seriously screw things up.
As a specific counterpoint to your way of thinking...
That's not a counterpoint. You're proving his point. You're a software engineer working hand in hand with the "expert". But that's not the issue. The problem is having every idiot who thinks they're $DIETY's gift to programming come through a scientific codebase and expecting said scientist to do tech support, which they would have to as they may be the only one who understands what they did. This is a waste of time for said scientist, as their primary job is research, not conducting Fluid Dynamics 101. And a lot of the codes written are one-time solutions for a particular bit of research.
Seriously, if you want to invalidate some results read the papers you want to attack and duplicate their algorithms in whatever programming language you want to use to prove that their wrong. Most code used in scientific papers are fairly short. Plus, doing and independent implementation helps further validate the research. What's the point of using their code? It's going to give you the same answers. Write your own, then you can be sure it was done "right".
~X~
There is a huge difference between a cellphone and WiFi. First, a cellphone can transmit up to 5 Watts. I can actually hear noise induced in my computer speakers every 10 minutes if the cellphone is nearby when it does it automatic call-home.
That's incorrect. The average cell phone these days uses 250 milliwatts. Even the ancient giganto phones used 3 watts. At 5 watts, you're cell phone battery would be depleted very quickly and just about anything ithin your immediate vicinity that wasn't heavily shielded would have more than minor interference. The reason you hear it in your computer speakers is because they aren't well shielded. Or, more lilkley, the cable running from your computer to your speakers isn't well shielded. So your calculations are off by quite a bit.
Sure, it's still more than wifi but the cell phone signal needs to make it farther. But you also seem to be forgetting the cellphone radiation is non-ionizing and doesn't have the energy to break a carbon bond, let alone do anything else.
~X~
You're kidding right?
You clearly have no grasp of meteorology vs. climatology. Because if you did you'd understand that modeling chaotic small scale systems is far more difficult than modeling generl large scale ones.
For example, I can tell you with a fair amount of accuracy that the temperatures in the northern hemisphere in January are colder than December. I can also give a fairly accurate oaverage monthly temperature for those two months as well. However, I couldn't tell you what the temperature would be on January 1, 2011 with any sort of accuracy.
But let's look at a simpler case: a balloon. I couldn't tell you with any accuracy where a articular molecule of air would be inside that balloon at any given moment, But I can, using basic physics and the surrounding conditions, tell you about how big that balloon would be.
ALL MODELS ARE WRONG! By definition, they have to be since they are simulations of complex scenarios. However, models are useful as you can run them thousands of times (known as an ensemble) and, knowing the error bounds you can get a reasonable likely scenario. This is what they do with the climate models. And despite the varying climate models, data files, and error bars they all show the same thing: the temperature will increase with increased CO2.
Saying a model is wrong is redundant. Saying a model is invalid is something entirely different.
~X~
I think you have it incorrect. This is how it went down.
McIntyre: You guys are full of shit. You're lying to fulfill your own agendas. Give me your research. ...
Scientists: You can look at the peer-reviewed articles.
McIntyre: I've got a geoscience degree, so I should get it for free. Including all your source code and data provided by proprietary sources.
Scientists: No, because that would waste of our time and money responding to your requests and we can't give out data from proprietary sources as that would violate contractual observations.
McIntyre: HA! Cover up! Cover up! You don't want to give it to me because you're lying sacks of shit!
Scientists: No we've already explained this. If the research articles and the data available with those articles are not enough for you then our conversation is over.
McIntyre: No it isn't! I'll send a billion FOIA requests! I'll find every little tiny insignificant error and blow it way out of proportion! I will gather the idiot masses behind me and hound you until my ego orgasms from my own self-importance!
Scientists: Good day Mr. McIntyre.
McIntyre: It's ours!, The precious is ours! They tooks it from us, and we wants it back!
~X~