I personally would rather not have any more "boxes" attached to my TV.
I have a Sony Google TV and I love it. I haven't noticed any latency issues.
BTW, You really can't compare an integrated Sony/Google TV (or similar) solution with Roku unless you ONLY care about streaming. One of the best things about Google TV is the integrated Chrome browser. I love watching some program and being able to pull up a browser in the background and learn about what other movies that actor is in? or what's the name of that song playing in the soundtrack? or how many stars does this movie get on Rotten Tomatoes? or what's that pitcher's stats? etc.... Or, if I want to show my family some pictures on some web site, but I would like to leave the playoff game on in the background.
I seriously considered iPhone for my last purchase, but I've started to think of my phone as a computer and the iPhone is simply too restrictive. I'm very happy with my Motorola Atrix. Actually, every Motorola phone I've had has been stellar.
Based on my experience with Samsung phones, I would be very surprised if they can hold that market share. In my family of 4 we had 4 Samsungs (various models - 3 smartphones). 3 of the 4 crapped out within the first 6 months of use (only the dumbphone continued to work). One of them had to be replaced 3 times. Samsung obviously does not care about quality control, so I'll never buy another Samsung product again... ever.
I know several friends that have had similar experiences and have come to similar conclusions. Samsung won't be able to hold on to their marketshare lead when they continuously deliver a poor user experience.
Ummm... couldn't resist pointing out that your reading comprehension is not quite right either...
You wrote:
he is asking for an app which would enable this
but what the OP actually wrote was:
I want a new Android phone which provides this
...just sayin'
Otherwise, I agree with you and add the point about how ironic/moronic it is that when people don't have a clue what you're talking about they jump to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about. The OP asked a legitimate question about proxy support and then more than half of the responders started talking about tethering support...
The feds claim against Gibson is not that they are using wood from non sustainable sources, as stated above. Gibson has clear documentation showing that it is.The feds maintain that the issue is that the wood was not "finished" by Indian workers, as (possibly) required by Indian law.
Incidentally, the Indian government is not involved.
What can be learned from the exploration of the moon or Mars? Maybe some natural history, but that will have very little impact on the quality of life here on Earth.
I know: knowledge is power, but the cost / benefit analysis just doesn't hold up. Once we get all the problems sorted out on terra firma, then we can think about spending money on off-world exploration... and even then, does it really need to be manned exploration? By the time we're ready to resume spaceward boondoggles, maybe we'll have autonomous robots that are more than capable enough to get the job done at a fraction of the cost, for longer periods of time, and no unnecessary risks to humans.
The article is somewhat unclear, but the patent application is pretty clear.
The reason Apple is proposing this solution is that it offers the maximum backwards compatibility.
A connector is what most people call the plug.
A jack is the entire female assembly (including housing) that can receive a connector/plug.
A port is the electrical portions of the jack (i.e. the electrical connectors in a specific configuration).
Apple's solution WILL allow the use of standard 3.5mm plugs / connectors.
Here's the exact relevant bit from the patent application:
16. The plug connector of claim 11 wherein the plug is cylindrical in shape, and wherein when the plug is inserted into the longitudinal passage, the plug extends at least partially through the second opening.
For full size plugs / connectors Apple proposes a cap of similar looking material to the device case, which will increase the profile of the device with a sort of bubble around the connector.
I use IE, FireFox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera... which, by my calculations would have put me at the top of the IQ heap (they are additive, right?). Now I guess I'll have to look for some other metric to prove how intellectually superior I am.
It's entirely possible to reduce CO2 emmissions without reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Likewise, it is possible to eliminate the use of fossil fuels while maintaining the current level of CO2 emissions. One does not necessarily follow the other.
Well, the SEO poisoning attack I understand, but that is not what was being described. The way SEO poisoning works is that the search engine is tricked into generating a link to a malicious site rather than a legitimate site. This would be one of the normal channels that would bring up the bogus MacDefender web page that looks like a virus scan is being performed. You still have to click one of the bogus buttons (OK or Cancel) to start the download of the installer.
What was described was something different where clicking on the Google link didn't take you to the MacDefender ruse, but initiated the installer download instantly (or perhaps took you to the page and the download started automatically). I think the second option is not possible in Safari... but I could be wrong. I have seen no threads anywhere to suggest that I am wrong, however. I have my doubts about the first option, but am less sure. One of the posts indicated that it was tied to the Safari bug/feature where image files are automatically downloaded. Now I have never seen this behavior, but there are threads where people complain about it, so there must be some truth to it. Also, while I have never seen an image file get automatically downloaded to any of my Macs, I have seen something similar happen with PDF files, so that lends a little credibility.
I have one site that routinely downloads PDFs instead of displaying them in my browser, so I was able to try some things. When the PDFs were automatically downloaded, they did not open automatically open. I have to manually launch them. This behavior is independent of my setting of the "Open safe files" setting.
So, bottom line, I have my doubts that merely clicking on a Google search result can cause the MacDefender installer to launch. For that to happen, the Google search results link would have to be modified to trigger a download instead of following a link. I'm going to give Google the benefit of the doubt that their security has not been compromised to facilitate this.
I did say "doubts", which means I am still open to a convincing argument or proof...
Hmmm... Well I have never observed this, but it sounds to me like the issue would be with the way Google builds it's links to search results, not with Safari, per se. Safari won't download anything unless you request it and to request it you have to perform some sort of click. Unfortunately, a cleverly crafted page can trick you into requesting it... and so... apparently can a poorly crafted Google results page.
Can you help me observe this behavior? I don't know what to search for to make it happen.
I don't completely understand what you mean by this:
Click on Google Image Search result
However, you said "just by visiting", I said "you have to click" and you said "click"...
Also, you are confusing automatically running an installer with automatically running the malware code.
Anyone who authorizes the operating system to install a program that did not come from a trusted source, deserves what they get. It's an important life lesson that some people can only learn by doing...
You are confused. Safari does not automatically download the trojan just by visiting the page, you have to click on one of the download buttons. Of course, they are disguised, but the user still has to be tricked into initiating the download. Safari does not automatically execute the trojan either. If you have not unchecked the "Open safe files" box in the general preferences, Safari will open the installer, but nothing is executed until the user approves the install. Even then, unless you are foolishly running as an admin, the OS will require your admin password before the install can proceed.
Any operating system that would prevent user stupidity would be crippling to a savvy user.
I'm pretty sure you will find that anytime somone feels the need to defend their choices, their religious centers will get triggered. It could be Apple products, memory foam, latex, or sleep number beds. Emacs versus VI. Gun control. Abortion... Jiffy peanut butter versus Peter Pan. blah, blah, blah. These are all "religious" arguments for some people.
if you're trying to argue that we should be skeptical about AGW because of all effects that amplify the effects of AGW
I think, if you go back through my posts it will be clear that in some cases I'm talking about general principles that impact global climate, in other cases I'm talking about global warming in general, and in other cases still, I'm talking about anthropogenic global warming. I'm not confused about these three independent concepts, but you seem to be. Do you assume that just because atmospheric CO2 is high that global warming is inevitable and that if CO2 is high it must be anthropogenic in nature and therefore the global warming is anthropogenic? If so, this is an overly simplistic (albeit common) view of the way the universe operates.
Our position in the current Milankovich cycle points to cooling, not warming.
There is not merely one Milankovich cycle. People who talk about Milankovich cycles like this are usually referring to the trivial 100,000 year cycles that take our planet between glacial and interglacial periods. However, the 100,000 year cycle is actually a composite of multiple smaller cycles that beat in non-integral periods. There are multiple warming trends within the larger "cycle". You are right, our current "position" within this larger cycle is not one of the big ones that marks the start of an interglacial period. You are also right that we are about 1/4 of the way into a cooling cycle. However, you are thinking in terms of 100,000 years and 24,000 years and in terms of ice ages and such... You are ignoring the smaller warming trends that can and do occur with smaller effects over shorter cycles.
you apparently know that it was because of his questioning of AGW
Not exactly. His crime was pointing out that some of the assumptions regarding ice core data appeared to be wrong. Not attacking AGW directly. It's as if he pointed out that the Earth must be older than 6000 years and is suddenly labeled an atheist since this line of thinking clearly contradicts the Bible...
What makes you think I believe any of those things?
You seem to think that you understand how I'm wired... I just thought I'd show you how it feels to have your scientific value system challenged with little or nothing to go on...
I'm a scientist, I would have to be a fool to dismiss the greenhouse effect and CO2's contribution to it.
I have never, would never, say that global warming is invalid. Once again you assume you know what I think and fail to hear what I say.
Our current position within a Milankovitch can certainly explain a warming trend. A warming trend can explain a rise in CO2.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about water vapor. Mine was that water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect. As temperatures increase, the atmosphere's ability to absorb more water vapor increases, which can lead to more warming. Most climatologists that I've talked to and seen papers from agree to this. Their only contention is that a rise in CO2 is precipitating (no pun intended) a corresponding and amplifying rise in water vapor. I don't dismiss that possibility.
Of course, methane has a greater greenhouse effect (per volume) than CO2. The question is what is the greatest source of methane? It's probably natural, though some anthropogenic causes probably weigh in with some significance - most notably farming.
You missed the point about CO2 sequestration in the oceans. As global temperature rise, the oceans are less effective at sequestering CO2, so more is released into the atmosphere. Again, which came first, the rise in temperature or the rise in CO2? Some experts say the former.
I don't know the details of the supervolcano guy's dismissal. Maybe you do? Otherwise, why would you assume that this was the way it went down? Oh yeah, because that's always the assumption - when it comes to GW, the one with the questions must be the crackpot...
I would hate to see what you think about how we determine the ages of stars.
Nice. You don't like your perception of my point about one concept so you formulate an arbitrary attack on my views regarding another concept... Jeez. I don't assume that you're a non-scientific sycophant just because you believe (1) that extraterrestrial intelligence exists and (2) that it would be possible to make contact with them and (3) that Frank Drake is not full of BS... The Drake Equation
There are plenty of mainstream scientists that have questioned the science. Never does it bode well for them. Does this make them wrong?
For years it was quietly forbidden to suggest that there might be more to DNA than the coding sections. The rest was simply "junk". Many scientists were squelched in their research that explored other possibilities. It took overwhelming perseverance by a few renegades to finally open the field of epigenetics. What if those brave few had also been beaten down? Even today, many genetic scientists begrudgingly admit that some junk DNA may not be junk... but they still insist that most of it still is. Sometimes scientific consensus can be a very bad and limiting thing.
First, you merely prove my earlier point (thank you). You assume that I am a denier and you resort to mockery. I don't deny AGW, I question. Some people don't seem to understand or appreciate the difference. I'm tempted to allow myself to drop to your level, but I'm going to assume you're bright enough to figure out what I think of your response and it's author.
Second, this topic is way too huge to approach with any serious effort in a forum like this... but I gave a little taste. See my response to SETIguy
the validity of the consensus view seems very certain. There is very little left to deny.
First, I don't deny anything. I merely question some things.
OK, I don't have enough bandwidth to deal with every little inconsistency in AGW, so I'm going to just address a few inconsistencies with one aspect. Most people accept ice core data as being a very definitive, solid science. The ice core data appears to tell us that current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are at an all-time high. There are three problems with ice core data.
The data alone does not tell us anything. We rely on models to process the data to give us meaningful results. Any good modeler will tell you that the model is only as good as the baseline data that is used to define it (there are other factors, but this is key). Unfortunately, we don't have any baseline data for the models used to analyze ice core data. Baseline data would require accurate readings of atmospheric CO2 at some distant time in the past when the trapped CO2 is from below the "sealing depth". In a couple of thousand years, we should be able to collect some baseline data and then make a decent model. In the mean time our models are crude and based on numerous assumptions.
I just mentioned a "sealing depth". Now I need to define what that is. Most people think that ice is layed down in layers trapping CO2 and other gasses as time passes. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Ice is gas permeable, which means that CO2 and other gas molecules can move from layer to layer through diffusion - typically moving from layers of higher concentrations to layers of lower concentrations. How far can these molecules move? It varies as a function of temperature, pressure, and many other factors, but most ice core specialist will tell you that, in terms of years, it can be upwards of 6000 years in the Vostok cores. In other words, the ice core concentration of CO2 is averaged out across many years. At some depth, this diffusion stops - this is called the sealing depth.
What happens when CO2 levels rise? We already know that the planet heats up. How hot does it need to get before arctic ice begins to melt. We already know that because we are already seeing it happen. How much CO2 is required to heat the planet sufficiently to melt arctic ice? Current concentrations are doing it as we speak. So if there were to be higher levels of atmospheric CO2 concentrations than what we are experiencing now, how exactly would the CO2 become trapped in the ice? In general, it wouldn't. And BTW, there are other sources of warming events that would tend to melt trapped data right back into the atmosphere.
Summarizing... We have inaccurate statistical models trying to make sense of data that is statistically spread in non-normal and unknown distributions and quite likely containing significant holes (or lost data). And, I've only touched on three issues. There are more - I just don't have time to enlighten you...
So this is just some common sense as to why the ice core data might be suspect... There is something a little more concrete... or actually, the opposite of concrete. There is something seriously missing in the ice core data. If the conventional wisdom were true, we should see evidence of at least four events of very high CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the ice core data that doesn't show up. These events are well understood by paleogeologists, but ignored (or dismissed) by paleoclimatologists. These are the Lake Taupo, Lake Toba, Whakamaru, and Yellowstone Caldera supervolcano erruptions. All VEI 8 erruptions; all within the timescale of the Vostok cores, all would have raised global atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations to many, many times higher than we are currently experiencing. Why does the Vostok core data (or any core data) not show these events? We've already answered that.
Again, I'm not denying anything except maybe the veracity of ice core science. I'm merely pointing out that what
Fact-free science is not a joke; it is very much on the move, and it is quite possibly the most dangerous movement in centuries, for the entirety of mankind.
From WIkipedia:
Symptoms of groupthink ...
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Speaking as a someone who has scrutinized the "factual science" of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in much detail, I will not bother to "deny" the validity of the consensus view. To do so would just result in my demonization by the "experts". Instead I will merely point out that the AGW movement has all of the earmarks of groupthink.
Whenever legitimate scientific challenges are raised, they are met by evasive strategies. Ignoring the valid scientific questions, AGW proponents will point to "postmodern loons" as examples of the kinds of fruitcakes that don't accept the consensus scientific view.
Really? You (like most people) would rather have to carry around a bunch of batteries and swap them in and out? Since the iPad battery has the capacity of about 6 to 7 average smartphone batteries and it would eat them incredibly fast, your pockets are gonna be full. But hey, if that's what you'd rather, who am I to say you're wrong?
If Bob is ordered by a court to hand over his hard drive as evidence in a criminal proceeding and he wipes it, it's destruction of evidence.
If Joe wipes his disk and then is ordered to hand over his hard drive as evidence in a criminal proceeding, it's NOT destruction of evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally would rather not have any more "boxes" attached to my TV.
I have a Sony Google TV and I love it.
I haven't noticed any latency issues.
BTW, You really can't compare an integrated Sony/Google TV (or similar) solution with Roku unless you ONLY care about streaming. One of the best things about Google TV is the integrated Chrome browser. I love watching some program and being able to pull up a browser in the background and learn about what other movies that actor is in? or what's the name of that song playing in the soundtrack? or how many stars does this movie get on Rotten Tomatoes? or what's that pitcher's stats? etc.... Or, if I want to show my family some pictures on some web site, but I would like to leave the playoff game on in the background.
Nice! Since it's practically impolssible to prove the negative, GEMA always wins...
Bulletproof clipboards have been around since the 70s.
Most law enforcement agencies gave up on them as being of limited value.
I seriously considered iPhone for my last purchase, but I've started to think of my phone as a computer and the iPhone is simply too restrictive. I'm very happy with my Motorola Atrix. Actually, every Motorola phone I've had has been stellar.
Based on my experience with Samsung phones, I would be very surprised if they can hold that market share. In my family of 4 we had 4 Samsungs (various models - 3 smartphones). 3 of the 4 crapped out within the first 6 months of use (only the dumbphone continued to work). One of them had to be replaced 3 times. Samsung obviously does not care about quality control, so I'll never buy another Samsung product again... ever.
I know several friends that have had similar experiences and have come to similar conclusions. Samsung won't be able to hold on to their marketshare lead when they continuously deliver a poor user experience.
Ummm... couldn't resist pointing out that your reading comprehension is not quite right either...
You wrote:
he is asking for an app which would enable this
but what the OP actually wrote was:
I want a new Android phone which provides this
...just sayin'
Otherwise, I agree with you and add the point about how ironic/moronic it is that when people don't have a clue what you're talking about they jump to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about. The OP asked a legitimate question about proxy support and then more than half of the responders started talking about tethering support...
The feds claim against Gibson is not that they are using wood from non sustainable sources, as stated above. Gibson has clear documentation showing that it is.The feds maintain that the issue is that the wood was not "finished" by Indian workers, as (possibly) required by Indian law.
Incidentally, the Indian government is not involved.
So what?
What can be learned from the exploration of the moon or Mars? Maybe some natural history, but that will have very little impact on the quality of life here on Earth.
I know: knowledge is power, but the cost / benefit analysis just doesn't hold up. Once we get all the problems sorted out on terra firma, then we can think about spending money on off-world exploration... and even then, does it really need to be manned exploration? By the time we're ready to resume spaceward boondoggles, maybe we'll have autonomous robots that are more than capable enough to get the job done at a fraction of the cost, for longer periods of time, and no unnecessary risks to humans.
About ports, jacks, and connectors.
The article is somewhat unclear, but the patent application is pretty clear.
The reason Apple is proposing this solution is that it offers the maximum backwards compatibility.
A connector is what most people call the plug.
A jack is the entire female assembly (including housing) that can receive a connector/plug.
A port is the electrical portions of the jack (i.e. the electrical connectors in a specific configuration).
Apple's solution WILL allow the use of standard 3.5mm plugs / connectors.
Here's the exact relevant bit from the patent application:
16. The plug connector of claim 11 wherein the plug is cylindrical in shape, and wherein when the plug is inserted into the longitudinal passage, the plug extends at least partially through the second opening.
For full size plugs / connectors Apple proposes a cap of similar looking material to the device case, which will increase the profile of the device with a sort of bubble around the connector.
I use IE, FireFox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera... which, by my calculations would have put me at the top of the IQ heap (they are additive, right?). Now I guess I'll have to look for some other metric to prove how intellectually superior I am.
It's entirely possible to reduce CO2 emmissions without reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Likewise, it is possible to eliminate the use of fossil fuels while maintaining the current level of CO2 emissions. One does not necessarily follow the other.
Well, the SEO poisoning attack I understand, but that is not what was being described. The way SEO poisoning works is that the search engine is tricked into generating a link to a malicious site rather than a legitimate site. This would be one of the normal channels that would bring up the bogus MacDefender web page that looks like a virus scan is being performed. You still have to click one of the bogus buttons (OK or Cancel) to start the download of the installer.
What was described was something different where clicking on the Google link didn't take you to the MacDefender ruse, but initiated the installer download instantly (or perhaps took you to the page and the download started automatically). I think the second option is not possible in Safari... but I could be wrong. I have seen no threads anywhere to suggest that I am wrong, however. I have my doubts about the first option, but am less sure. One of the posts indicated that it was tied to the Safari bug/feature where image files are automatically downloaded. Now I have never seen this behavior, but there are threads where people complain about it, so there must be some truth to it. Also, while I have never seen an image file get automatically downloaded to any of my Macs, I have seen something similar happen with PDF files, so that lends a little credibility.
I have one site that routinely downloads PDFs instead of displaying them in my browser, so I was able to try some things. When the PDFs were automatically downloaded, they did not open automatically open. I have to manually launch them. This behavior is independent of my setting of the "Open safe files" setting.
So, bottom line, I have my doubts that merely clicking on a Google search result can cause the MacDefender installer to launch. For that to happen, the Google search results link would have to be modified to trigger a download instead of following a link. I'm going to give Google the benefit of the doubt that their security has not been compromised to facilitate this.
I did say "doubts", which means I am still open to a convincing argument or proof...
Hmmm... Well I have never observed this, but it sounds to me like the issue would be with the way Google builds it's links to search results, not with Safari, per se. Safari won't download anything unless you request it and to request it you have to perform some sort of click. Unfortunately, a cleverly crafted page can trick you into requesting it... and so... apparently can a poorly crafted Google results page.
Can you help me observe this behavior? I don't know what to search for to make it happen.
I don't completely understand what you mean by this:
Click on Google Image Search result
However, you said "just by visiting", I said "you have to click" and you said "click"...
Also, you are confusing automatically running an installer with automatically running the malware code.
Anyone who authorizes the operating system to install a program that did not come from a trusted source, deserves what they get. It's an important life lesson that some people can only learn by doing...
You are confused. Safari does not automatically download the trojan just by visiting the page, you have to click on one of the download buttons. Of course, they are disguised, but the user still has to be tricked into initiating the download. Safari does not automatically execute the trojan either. If you have not unchecked the "Open safe files" box in the general preferences, Safari will open the installer, but nothing is executed until the user approves the install. Even then, unless you are foolishly running as an admin, the OS will require your admin password before the install can proceed.
Any operating system that would prevent user stupidity would be crippling to a savvy user.
That is freakin' hilarious!
I'm pretty sure you will find that anytime somone feels the need to defend their choices, their religious centers will get triggered. It could be Apple products, memory foam, latex, or sleep number beds. Emacs versus VI. Gun control. Abortion... Jiffy peanut butter versus Peter Pan. blah, blah, blah. These are all "religious" arguments for some people.
if you're trying to argue that we should be skeptical about AGW because of all effects that amplify the effects of AGW
I think, if you go back through my posts it will be clear that in some cases I'm talking about general principles that impact global climate, in other cases I'm talking about global warming in general, and in other cases still, I'm talking about anthropogenic global warming. I'm not confused about these three independent concepts, but you seem to be. Do you assume that just because atmospheric CO2 is high that global warming is inevitable and that if CO2 is high it must be anthropogenic in nature and therefore the global warming is anthropogenic? If so, this is an overly simplistic (albeit common) view of the way the universe operates.
Our position in the current Milankovich cycle points to cooling, not warming.
There is not merely one Milankovich cycle. People who talk about Milankovich cycles like this are usually referring to the trivial 100,000 year cycles that take our planet between glacial and interglacial periods. However, the 100,000 year cycle is actually a composite of multiple smaller cycles that beat in non-integral periods. There are multiple warming trends within the larger "cycle". You are right, our current "position" within this larger cycle is not one of the big ones that marks the start of an interglacial period. You are also right that we are about 1/4 of the way into a cooling cycle. However, you are thinking in terms of 100,000 years and 24,000 years and in terms of ice ages and such... You are ignoring the smaller warming trends that can and do occur with smaller effects over shorter cycles.
you apparently know that it was because of his questioning of AGW
Not exactly. His crime was pointing out that some of the assumptions regarding ice core data appeared to be wrong. Not attacking AGW directly. It's as if he pointed out that the Earth must be older than 6000 years and is suddenly labeled an atheist since this line of thinking clearly contradicts the Bible...
What makes you think I believe any of those things?
You seem to think that you understand how I'm wired... I just thought I'd show you how it feels to have your scientific value system challenged with little or nothing to go on...
I'm a scientist, I would have to be a fool to dismiss the greenhouse effect and CO2's contribution to it.
I have never, would never, say that global warming is invalid. Once again you assume you know what I think and fail to hear what I say.
Our current position within a Milankovitch can certainly explain a warming trend. A warming trend can explain a rise in CO2.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about water vapor. Mine was that water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect. As temperatures increase, the atmosphere's ability to absorb more water vapor increases, which can lead to more warming. Most climatologists that I've talked to and seen papers from agree to this. Their only contention is that a rise in CO2 is precipitating (no pun intended) a corresponding and amplifying rise in water vapor. I don't dismiss that possibility.
Of course, methane has a greater greenhouse effect (per volume) than CO2. The question is what is the greatest source of methane? It's probably natural, though some anthropogenic causes probably weigh in with some significance - most notably farming.
You missed the point about CO2 sequestration in the oceans. As global temperature rise, the oceans are less effective at sequestering CO2, so more is released into the atmosphere. Again, which came first, the rise in temperature or the rise in CO2? Some experts say the former.
I don't know the details of the supervolcano guy's dismissal. Maybe you do? Otherwise, why would you assume that this was the way it went down? Oh yeah, because that's always the assumption - when it comes to GW, the one with the questions must be the crackpot...
I would hate to see what you think about how we determine the ages of stars.
Nice. You don't like your perception of my point about one concept so you formulate an arbitrary attack on my views regarding another concept... Jeez. I don't assume that you're a non-scientific sycophant just because you believe (1) that extraterrestrial intelligence exists and (2) that it would be possible to make contact with them and (3) that Frank Drake is not full of BS... The Drake Equation
There are plenty of mainstream scientists that have questioned the science. Never does it bode well for them. Does this make them wrong?
For years it was quietly forbidden to suggest that there might be more to DNA than the coding sections. The rest was simply "junk". Many scientists were squelched in their research that explored other possibilities. It took overwhelming perseverance by a few renegades to finally open the field of epigenetics. What if those brave few had also been beaten down? Even today, many genetic scientists begrudgingly admit that some junk DNA may not be junk... but they still insist that most of it still is. Sometimes scientific consensus can be a very bad and limiting thing.
First, you merely prove my earlier point (thank you). You assume that I am a denier and you resort to mockery. I don't deny AGW, I question. Some people don't seem to understand or appreciate the difference. I'm tempted to allow myself to drop to your level, but I'm going to assume you're bright enough to figure out what I think of your response and it's author.
Second, this topic is way too huge to approach with any serious effort in a forum like this... but I gave a little taste. See my response to SETIguy
the validity of the consensus view seems very certain. There is very little left to deny.
First, I don't deny anything. I merely question some things.
OK, I don't have enough bandwidth to deal with every little inconsistency in AGW, so I'm going to just address a few inconsistencies with one aspect. Most people accept ice core data as being a very definitive, solid science. The ice core data appears to tell us that current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are at an all-time high. There are three problems with ice core data.
Summarizing... We have inaccurate statistical models trying to make sense of data that is statistically spread in non-normal and unknown distributions and quite likely containing significant holes (or lost data). And, I've only touched on three issues. There are more - I just don't have time to enlighten you...
So this is just some common sense as to why the ice core data might be suspect... There is something a little more concrete... or actually, the opposite of concrete. There is something seriously missing in the ice core data. If the conventional wisdom were true, we should see evidence of at least four events of very high CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the ice core data that doesn't show up. These events are well understood by paleogeologists, but ignored (or dismissed) by paleoclimatologists. These are the Lake Taupo, Lake Toba, Whakamaru, and Yellowstone Caldera supervolcano erruptions. All VEI 8 erruptions; all within the timescale of the Vostok cores, all would have raised global atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations to many, many times higher than we are currently experiencing. Why does the Vostok core data (or any core data) not show these events? We've already answered that.
Again, I'm not denying anything except maybe the veracity of ice core science. I'm merely pointing out that what
Fact-free science is not a joke; it is very much on the move, and it is quite possibly the most dangerous movement in centuries, for the entirety of mankind.
From WIkipedia:
Symptoms of groupthink
...
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Speaking as a someone who has scrutinized the "factual science" of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in much detail, I will not bother to "deny" the validity of the consensus view. To do so would just result in my demonization by the "experts". Instead I will merely point out that the AGW movement has all of the earmarks of groupthink.
Whenever legitimate scientific challenges are raised, they are met by evasive strategies. Ignoring the valid scientific questions, AGW proponents will point to "postmodern loons" as examples of the kinds of fruitcakes that don't accept the consensus scientific view.
Really? You (like most people) would rather have to carry around a bunch of batteries and swap them in and out? Since the iPad battery has the capacity of about 6 to 7 average smartphone batteries and it would eat them incredibly fast, your pockets are gonna be full. But hey, if that's what you'd rather, who am I to say you're wrong?
If Bob is ordered by a court to hand over his hard drive as evidence in a criminal proceeding and he wipes it, it's destruction of evidence. If Joe wipes his disk and then is ordered to hand over his hard drive as evidence in a criminal proceeding, it's NOT destruction of evidence.