If they advertised it as "will let you play Angry Birds" and some quadriplegic would then sue because he can't play?
If they advertise to quadriplegics the 'fact' that they could and quadriplegics can't, then they would be in breach of the law. Whether the "some quadriplegic" could then sue, is a question of standing. Remember it isn't some iPad purchaser suing here, it's the ACCC.
The Crux of the matter here is that 4G is available in Australia, Apple just can't be bothered making the iPad compatible with the Australian Network
Actually the fault for incompatibility lies with Telstra who chose a different band in full knowledge that it would be incompatible with the rest of the world, presumably for their own anti-competitive strategies. This is not to excuse Apple, whose advertising in the Australian context certainly appears unlawful (enough for the ACCC to take action, and they tend to know their consumer law).
The crux of the matter is that Apple just can't be bothered making their advertising appropriate for Australian consumption.
This appears to be just the same: advertise 4G, and in the small print, point out that you will probably never get 4G. It's dishonest.
Moreover outright dishonesty is not an element the ACCC needs to prove. The claim need not even be false, it need only be misleading
The relevant provision in the new Australian Consumer Law which replaces the old s52 Trade Practices Act 1974 and which the legislature in its inimitable wisdom has chosen to bury in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, reads:
18 (1). A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
As does the iPad3, using I presume the same software on the iPhone 4s. What they both lack, OTOH, is SIRI. Say, do you remember when SIRI access of keyboard only?
A crime is a combination of act and motive (intent). Far from being "separate from the crime," hate is the motive essential to a hate crime.
If the prosecution can show that the accused hated the person they allege he/she acted against, they have a motive to show the jury which makes their allegation more credible.
You don't understand how this game works. In order to make out a crime, the prosecution must establish a number of elements which constitute the crime. Where a hate crime is alleged, the prosecution doesn't "show that the accused hated the person... [to make] their allegation more credible." Instead the prosecution must convince the jury that the accused does in fact hate the minority of which the victim is a member. It is the hate itself which is the allegation.
Making such hatred a separate crime violates equal protection...
Arguably so.
... and the basic freedom to think as one pleases regardless of how warped those thoughts may be.
Not so. Crime is a combination of thought AND action. You can have thoughts as warped as you like. We'll only start listening when you act on those thoughts.
Laws are designed to punish actions, not thoughts.
Criminal laws are designed to punish an action (actus reus) only when motivated by particular thoughts (mens rea). As I wrote above, strict liability offences are a bitch. You really don't want a criminal justice system which disregards intent. Laws designed to punish actions (and actions alone) should, as you put it, "should be reserved for dystopian fiction."
exactly. That is like polling a political party convention and finding out 98% of them agree on their chosen stance on guns.
Nonsense! A political party is self-selecting on the basis of political opinions so the selection bias is of the same nature as the information being polled, a political opinion. The selection bias here is not on the basis of opinion, but on the basis of expertise. If you want to rescue your analogy, it's much more like polling the 1000 best marksmen (expertise) and finding out that 98% of them agree on their chosen stance on guns (political opinion).
Let us not also forget about the many instances of research that has been abandoned or destroyed by some of those same climate researchers because it didnt agree with their views.
Could you jog our memory a little and list these many instances?
I made no claims about the quality of the paper either way. That 98% figure was cited (not by me), someone asked for the citation and I pointed them to the source of that figure.
But since you raise the selection criteria, I agree, the selection criteria would seem to introduce a strong bias toward the more prominent and expert climate scientists and exclude newer researchers or those only at the margins of the discipline.
Absolutely! It's a sad day when those of us who do accept the mainstream position on this topic feel we have to denounce skepticism (ie. the demand for proof as opposed to mere nay saying) itself, or cannot recognise reports such as these as good news.
Because I am pretty sure the numbers are no where close to your posting.
For the claim that "98% of them to agree that it's somehow caused or contributed to by human activity," try Anderegg et al. Note that this is 98% of publishing climate scientist, not scientists in general.
I somehow doubt that that 98% would advocate abandoning scientific skepticism however. And I hope that most of them would be relieved ultimately to be proven wrong.
The problem with your assertions is that from their own emails we know that these scientists have actively worked to pervert the peer review process...
What you know is a small selection of the stolen emails heavily redacted, put out of context and spun for political purposes. Both the academic and the judicial inquiries into the affair, who examined the entire body of evidence and gave those implicated the opportunity to explain context (as due process demands), while critical of the handling of FOI requests, exonerated Dr Jones and his unit of any serious academic wrongdoing. The snippet habitually cited to show perversion of the peer review process, in which Dr Jones is rather less than polite about a paper he thinks should never be published, was actually published. As it happens the peer review process is bigger than Phil Jones.
... therefore nullifying your belief that only published scientists should contribute to the scientific discussion.
Non sequitur. There have been cases of academic fraud in the past and the whole edifice of modern science did not come tumbling down. Had it of been the case that Dr Jones really had perverted the peer review process or committed some other species of academic fraud, the result would merely have been that we have one less expert scientist who warrants our trust.
It's not a question of who "[I] believe... should contribute to the scientific discussion," but of who is contributing. The published science is THE discussion. If you are not in the discussion, you are not in the discussion.
In any case in these post-BEST days, isn't a bit too late in the day to regurgitate the tired "Climategate" accusations.
Actually, though, they'd be denying the attached political program, not the underlying basic science.
That's not denialism. If climate deniers were doing that there would be not problem. The question of what, if anything, to do in response the the science is inherently a political question.
Similarly, no one denies that CO2 acts to warm things up in a closed glass box.
And why does this make a person qualified? Why is a person unqualified if he does not hold these distinctions?
Obviously because of the next snippet you quote. It's not really to scientists, but to the published science that we must ultimately defer. If you are not publishing, or at least directly influencing what is being published, you have no seat at the table. And your opinions are just that. I was being terribly generous in allowing established Professors of relevant disciplines the right to be heard;)
Really? We must?
We --those of use who wish to have best available factual understanding of physical reality (upon the assumption that the modern science provides the most efficacious epistemology available) --must. You, of course, are free to wallow in ignorance and delusion if you so choose. I'd suggest you don't and instead develop the skills to ascertain credible authority (let's not forget that science is 90% authority and 10% original research), but that's your choice.
Right. And according to mainstream economists...
What economists, literary critics or astrologers believe or do provides little illumination to a discussion of how science must be conducted. Please stay on topic.
And recent attempts to revive these questions by the very few suitably qualified scientists who do disagree with the mainstream [citing two recent such attempts, Lindzen & Choi (2009) and Spencer and Braswell (2011)].
Clearly you personally know every single scientist in the world...
Non sequitur.
--including those who haven't published
I'm sorry?! We've already established that they aren't suitably qualified. They are entitled to their opinion, of course, and I'll concede that their opinions are likely to be better founded than the ordinary person's, but they are not part of the scientific debate.
Slightly off topic, but we do have a handle on the personal beliefs of expert scientists and scientists in general on this topic, this question itself having been the the subject of some research. The popularly cited Anderegg et al. has 97% of published climate scientists agreeing on the anthropogenic nature of observed global warming. Wikipedia has a good summary here and more generally here. For the reason outline above, however, you'd be better off hitting a scientific abstracting service, or even reading the AR4 WG1 report (but wait till AR5 comes out), than conducting an opinion poll of scientists, even expert scientists.
--are intimately familiar with all their work, life history, intelligence level...
All fairly irrelevant.
... theories
These at least are pertinent.
, etc, and are therefore able to judge the exact persons who are and who aren't "suitably qualified" to tackle this subject.
Yes I am able to make that judgement, not for the reasons you outline, but (at least in part) upon the criteria I gave in the post you are responding to. And so to could you.
Most people probably wouldn't deny that the climate keeps changing (e.g. Ice Age) but so far I've personally not seen credible evidence for the idea that mankind has much if anything to do with it - temperatures appear to have changed substantially even long before the industrial revolution. On balance it's probably natural for geeks (many of whom are naturally inquisitive)
Since, as you confess, you have not personally looked the evidence, it follows that you are an exceptional geek.:p
The use of "denier" in this context sounds no different than... assuming that whatever is "denied" is in fact true.
Yes exactly, you finally grok it! A denier is simply someone who denies facts. And if they did not deny what we must assume (based on the best available scientific knowledge) to be true, we wouldn't be calling them deniers. Or to quote AC: "Which is why the label "denier" is appropriate."
When it comes to arguing global warming, there appear to be more parallels with religion than with actual science.
I agree. Anyone arguing against global warming, which is after all an observed phenomenon, is clearly not arguing scientifically. We really should not be arguing about it, we should be taking some action to alleviate and mitigate against it.
Using a "convenient one word label" turns the debate from scientific to political.
But this is a political debate, not a scientific one. The scientific debate is conducted in journals and conferences not on this kind of forum and not by you and I. The scientific debate is largely over, or rather it has moved on from the issues which are still hotly contested in the political debate.
It's focusing more on "us vs. them" than discussing the real issues at hand.
The "real issue at hand" is what policy position, if any, ought to be adopted in light of the now established science, or if you prefer, the current best available science. Denialists have no interest in discussing the real issues. Quite the opposite, they are concerned with stopping the real issues from being discussed at all.
We call people who disrupt democratic process with bombs with a convenient one-word label: 'terrorist.' You may object, but it makes conversation more convenient. So what would you call people who disrupt the democratic process with disinformation about science, regardless of whether it's about climate, AIDS, vaccines or whatever? We usually find it easier to identify these people as 'deniers' or 'denialists.' They would like to be called skeptics, but that is actually only more disinformation.
Neither is the mass of raw data which is routinely challenged by climate deniers, you know "warming has stopped it's been getting colder for the last x years..."
Comparing gravity to AGW is preposterous.
I think you've missed AC's point which, if I may, was that an argument along the lines of "if you can't name any scientists you regard as reputable who disagree with a well-established sciency then you criterion for selecting reputability is obviously politically biased... exactly!" is not a valid argument. I think that still stands even if gravity can easily be tested by high school physics students.
Terms like "denier" or "believer" have no place in this debate.
What convenient one-word label should we use for the anti-science side of this debate? Bearing in mind that using 'sceptic' for deniers is completely unacceptable to sceptics such as myself?
Both imply an unwillingness to consider what is known and what isn't.
A denier is simply someone who denies what is known is in fact known (inasmuch as anything can be "known"). If people are out there simply denying what is known why is it wrong with to call them 'deniers?'
Am I allowed to call Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a 'dictator?' Or is that forbidden too?
See, that's the problem. Any scientist that questions it is immediately deemed unqualified or even unethical simply because they have bothered to question it.
Oh come on Archer. The criterion for "suitably qualified" is not whether they personally agree or disagree with any position. It is simply whether they are literally suitably qualified, which is to say, are they working and publishing (in an ISI listed peer reviewed journal, i.e. not a phish journal like E&E) in the field, the holder of a chair in the relevant discipline etc.. And ultimately it's not what scientists say, but what the bulk of the published science says that we must defer to.
Nor is there universal agreement among most expert climatologists. But the baby questions, such as is anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere rising; are mean global temperatures rising; and are the two causally linked, are now settled in the affirmative. The scientific debate has largely moved on. And recent attempts to revive these questions by the very few suitably qualified scientists who do disagree with the mainstream has invariably resulted in disaster: Witness Lindzen & Choi (2009) (In Lindzen's favour, once the flaws in this paper were pointed out he withdrew it without hesitation), or the debacle surrounding Spencer and Braswell (2011).
Now once he was presented with the body of the science, the editor of Remote Sensing (where Spencer and Braswell appeared) realised he'd been duped and took the appropriate course of action (for which see the link above). When are you going to wake up Archer, and face up to the fact that you've been duped too?
Here's the temperature plotted over the last 32 years
Why 32 years? If you want it to look less dramatic still just use the last 15, or even better 13, years.
Whatever you do, DO NOT let anyone see a plot for the entire instrumental record. It will just scare them! Remember information is harmful to ordinary people. And as far as those proxy reconstructions that go back thousands and tens of thousands of years... we must do everything in our power to discredit them, no matter what the cost!
Of course there and your list is a matter of choice. But choices have consequence, and the consequence of not having seen V is that you are less qualified to comment on the nature of Anonymous than someone who knows the ending sequence of that movie (and indeed the movie/graphic novel as a whole).
So perhaps you ought to listen to folks here who are clearly arguing from a position of greater knowledge?:p
btw, don't read below this line if you are in the airforce.
Great, now AF will have to ban/. too!
And Maxo, while we're talking about your publishing these classified secrets (with obvious anti-US intent)... that girl you slept with when you were on holiday in an unspecified European country...
I don't know if it is true but I've read in some media accounts
[citation needed]
that these attacks have in some cases prevented these companies from conducting their regular financial transactions with customers.
Anyone know if this is true?
It would be nice to think they did, but I doubt it. It doesn't seem to be getting much of mention (yet) in the professional security reporting.
If it is true Anon. is doing a lot more than preventing these companies from sharing info via a website..
Yes they would be imposing a cost on companies who are corruptly swapping favors with politicians. Unfortunately the cost is unlikely to persuade these companies from behaving any better in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
If they advertised it as "will let you play Angry Birds" and some quadriplegic would then sue because he can't play?
If they advertise to quadriplegics the 'fact' that they could and quadriplegics can't, then they would be in breach of the law. Whether the "some quadriplegic" could then sue, is a question of standing. Remember it isn't some iPad purchaser suing here, it's the ACCC.
The Crux of the matter here is that 4G is available in Australia, Apple just can't be bothered making the iPad compatible with the Australian Network
Actually the fault for incompatibility lies with Telstra who chose a different band in full knowledge that it would be incompatible with the rest of the world, presumably for their own anti-competitive strategies. This is not to excuse Apple, whose advertising in the Australian context certainly appears unlawful (enough for the ACCC to take action, and they tend to know their consumer law).
The crux of the matter is that Apple just can't be bothered making their advertising appropriate for Australian consumption.
This appears to be just the same: advertise 4G, and in the small print, point out that you will probably never get 4G. It's dishonest.
Moreover outright dishonesty is not an element the ACCC needs to prove. The claim need not even be false, it need only be misleading
The relevant provision in the new Australian Consumer Law which replaces the old s52 Trade Practices Act 1974 and which the legislature in its inimitable wisdom has chosen to bury in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, reads:
18 (1). A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
Android has voice dictation too hasn't it ?
As does the iPad3, using I presume the same software on the iPhone 4s. What they both lack, OTOH, is SIRI. Say, do you remember when SIRI access of keyboard only?
Hate is motive, separate from the crime.
A crime is a combination of act and motive (intent). Far from being "separate from the crime," hate is the motive essential to a hate crime.
If the prosecution can show that the accused hated the person they allege he/she acted against, they have a motive to show the jury which makes their allegation more credible.
You don't understand how this game works. In order to make out a crime, the prosecution must establish a number of elements which constitute the crime. Where a hate crime is alleged, the prosecution doesn't "show that the accused hated the person ... [to make] their allegation more credible." Instead the prosecution must convince the jury that the accused does in fact hate the minority of which the victim is a member. It is the hate itself which is the allegation.
Making such hatred a separate crime violates equal protection ...
Arguably so.
Not so. Crime is a combination of thought AND action. You can have thoughts as warped as you like. We'll only start listening when you act on those thoughts.
Laws are designed to punish actions, not thoughts.
Criminal laws are designed to punish an action (actus reus) only when motivated by particular thoughts (mens rea). As I wrote above, strict liability offences are a bitch. You really don't want a criminal justice system which disregards intent. Laws designed to punish actions (and actions alone) should, as you put it, "should be reserved for dystopian fiction."
So, hate crime is thoughtcrime?
Well ALL crime has (or ought to have) some thoughtcrime component (i.e. mens rea). Strict liability offences are a bitch!
exactly. That is like polling a political party convention and finding out 98% of them agree on their chosen stance on guns.
Nonsense! A political party is self-selecting on the basis of political opinions so the selection bias is of the same nature as the information being polled, a political opinion. The selection bias here is not on the basis of opinion, but on the basis of expertise. If you want to rescue your analogy, it's much more like polling the 1000 best marksmen (expertise) and finding out that 98% of them agree on their chosen stance on guns (political opinion).
Let us not also forget about the many instances of research that has been abandoned or destroyed by some of those same climate researchers because it didnt agree with their views.
Could you jog our memory a little and list these many instances?
Sorry, this paper is total garbage.
I made no claims about the quality of the paper either way. That 98% figure was cited (not by me), someone asked for the citation and I pointed them to the source of that figure.
But since you raise the selection criteria, I agree, the selection criteria would seem to introduce a strong bias toward the more prominent and expert climate scientists and exclude newer researchers or those only at the margins of the discipline.
I will remain skeptical by default.
Absolutely! It's a sad day when those of us who do accept the mainstream position on this topic feel we have to denounce skepticism (ie. the demand for proof as opposed to mere nay saying) itself, or cannot recognise reports such as these as good news.
[Citation]
Because I am pretty sure the numbers are no where close to your posting.
For the claim that "98% of them to agree that it's somehow caused or contributed to by human activity," try Anderegg et al. Note that this is 98% of publishing climate scientist, not scientists in general.
I somehow doubt that that 98% would advocate abandoning scientific skepticism however. And I hope that most of them would be relieved ultimately to be proven wrong.
The problem with your assertions is that from their own emails we know that these scientists have actively worked to pervert the peer review process ...
What you know is a small selection of the stolen emails heavily redacted, put out of context and spun for political purposes. Both the academic and the judicial inquiries into the affair, who examined the entire body of evidence and gave those implicated the opportunity to explain context (as due process demands), while critical of the handling of FOI requests, exonerated Dr Jones and his unit of any serious academic wrongdoing. The snippet habitually cited to show perversion of the peer review process, in which Dr Jones is rather less than polite about a paper he thinks should never be published, was actually published. As it happens the peer review process is bigger than Phil Jones.
Non sequitur. There have been cases of academic fraud in the past and the whole edifice of modern science did not come tumbling down. Had it of been the case that Dr Jones really had perverted the peer review process or committed some other species of academic fraud, the result would merely have been that we have one less expert scientist who warrants our trust.
It's not a question of who "[I] believe ... should contribute to the scientific discussion," but of who is contributing. The published science is THE discussion. If you are not in the discussion, you are not in the discussion.
In any case in these post-BEST days, isn't a bit too late in the day to regurgitate the tired "Climategate" accusations.
Actually, though, they'd be denying the attached political program, not the underlying basic science.
That's not denialism. If climate deniers were doing that there would be not problem. The question of what, if anything, to do in response the the science is inherently a political question.
Similarly, no one denies that CO2 acts to warm things up in a closed glass box.
I have seen people deny exactly that.
With all due respect Oligonicella, you are outrageously misinformed. Almost all the data is freely and publicly available, and at least for GISS even the source code is available. You can run it at home.
A shady secret conspiracy? Seems like someone has been playing you for a sucker.
And why does this make a person qualified? Why is a person unqualified if he does not hold these distinctions?
Obviously because of the next snippet you quote. It's not really to scientists, but to the published science that we must ultimately defer. If you are not publishing, or at least directly influencing what is being published, you have no seat at the table. And your opinions are just that. I was being terribly generous in allowing established Professors of relevant disciplines the right to be heard ;)
Really? We must?
We --those of use who wish to have best available factual understanding of physical reality (upon the assumption that the modern science provides the most efficacious epistemology available) --must. You, of course, are free to wallow in ignorance and delusion if you so choose. I'd suggest you don't and instead develop the skills to ascertain credible authority (let's not forget that science is 90% authority and 10% original research), but that's your choice.
Right. And according to mainstream economists ...
What economists, literary critics or astrologers believe or do provides little illumination to a discussion of how science must be conducted. Please stay on topic.
And recent attempts to revive these questions by the very few suitably qualified scientists who do disagree with the mainstream [citing two recent such attempts, Lindzen & Choi (2009) and Spencer and Braswell (2011)].
Clearly you personally know every single scientist in the world ...
Non sequitur.
--including those who haven't published
I'm sorry?! We've already established that they aren't suitably qualified. They are entitled to their opinion, of course, and I'll concede that their opinions are likely to be better founded than the ordinary person's, but they are not part of the scientific debate.
Slightly off topic, but we do have a handle on the personal beliefs of expert scientists and scientists in general on this topic, this question itself having been the the subject of some research. The popularly cited Anderegg et al. has 97% of published climate scientists agreeing on the anthropogenic nature of observed global warming. Wikipedia has a good summary here and more generally here. For the reason outline above, however, you'd be better off hitting a scientific abstracting service, or even reading the AR4 WG1 report (but wait till AR5 comes out), than conducting an opinion poll of scientists, even expert scientists.
--are intimately familiar with all their work, life history, intelligence level ...
All fairly irrelevant.
These at least are pertinent.
, etc, and are therefore able to judge the exact persons who are and who aren't "suitably qualified" to tackle this subject.
Yes I am able to make that judgement, not for the reasons you outline, but (at least in part) upon the criteria I gave in the post you are responding to. And so to could you.
Most people probably wouldn't deny that the climate keeps changing (e.g. Ice Age) but so far I've personally not seen credible evidence for the idea that mankind has much if anything to do with it - temperatures appear to have changed substantially even long before the industrial revolution. On balance it's probably natural for geeks (many of whom are naturally inquisitive)
Since, as you confess, you have not personally looked the evidence, it follows that you are an exceptional geek. :p
The use of "denier" in this context sounds no different than ... assuming that whatever is "denied" is in fact true.
Yes exactly, you finally grok it! A denier is simply someone who denies facts. And if they did not deny what we must assume (based on the best available scientific knowledge) to be true, we wouldn't be calling them deniers. Or to quote AC: "Which is why the label "denier" is appropriate."
When it comes to arguing global warming, there appear to be more parallels with religion than with actual science.
I agree. Anyone arguing against global warming, which is after all an observed phenomenon, is clearly not arguing scientifically. We really should not be arguing about it, we should be taking some action to alleviate and mitigate against it.
Using a "convenient one word label" turns the debate from scientific to political.
But this is a political debate, not a scientific one. The scientific debate is conducted in journals and conferences not on this kind of forum and not by you and I. The scientific debate is largely over, or rather it has moved on from the issues which are still hotly contested in the political debate.
It's focusing more on "us vs. them" than discussing the real issues at hand.
The "real issue at hand" is what policy position, if any, ought to be adopted in light of the now established science, or if you prefer, the current best available science. Denialists have no interest in discussing the real issues. Quite the opposite, they are concerned with stopping the real issues from being discussed at all.
We call people who disrupt democratic process with bombs with a convenient one-word label: 'terrorist.' You may object, but it makes conversation more convenient. So what would you call people who disrupt the democratic process with disinformation about science, regardless of whether it's about climate, AIDS, vaccines or whatever? We usually find it easier to identify these people as 'deniers' or 'denialists.' They would like to be called skeptics, but that is actually only more disinformation.
"Gravity" is not a theory.
Neither is the mass of raw data which is routinely challenged by climate deniers, you know "warming has stopped it's been getting colder for the last x years ..."
Comparing gravity to AGW is preposterous.
I think you've missed AC's point which, if I may, was that an argument along the lines of "if you can't name any scientists you regard as reputable who disagree with a well-established sciency then you criterion for selecting reputability is obviously politically biased ... exactly!" is not a valid argument. I think that still stands even if gravity can easily be tested by high school physics students.
Terms like "denier" or "believer" have no place in this debate.
What convenient one-word label should we use for the anti-science side of this debate? Bearing in mind that using 'sceptic' for deniers is completely unacceptable to sceptics such as myself?
Both imply an unwillingness to consider what is known and what isn't.
A denier is simply someone who denies what is known is in fact known (inasmuch as anything can be "known"). If people are out there simply denying what is known why is it wrong with to call them 'deniers?'
Am I allowed to call Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a 'dictator?' Or is that forbidden too?
See, that's the problem. Any scientist that questions it is immediately deemed unqualified or even unethical simply because they have bothered to question it.
Oh come on Archer. The criterion for "suitably qualified" is not whether they personally agree or disagree with any position. It is simply whether they are literally suitably qualified, which is to say, are they working and publishing (in an ISI listed peer reviewed journal, i.e. not a phish journal like E&E) in the field, the holder of a chair in the relevant discipline etc.. And ultimately it's not what scientists say, but what the bulk of the published science says that we must defer to.
Nor is there universal agreement among most expert climatologists. But the baby questions, such as is anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere rising; are mean global temperatures rising; and are the two causally linked, are now settled in the affirmative. The scientific debate has largely moved on. And recent attempts to revive these questions by the very few suitably qualified scientists who do disagree with the mainstream has invariably resulted in disaster: Witness Lindzen & Choi (2009) (In Lindzen's favour, once the flaws in this paper were pointed out he withdrew it without hesitation), or the debacle surrounding Spencer and Braswell (2011).
Now once he was presented with the body of the science, the editor of Remote Sensing (where Spencer and Braswell appeared) realised he'd been duped and took the appropriate course of action (for which see the link above). When are you going to wake up Archer, and face up to the fact that you've been duped too?
Here's the temperature plotted over the last 32 years
Why 32 years? If you want it to look less dramatic still just use the last 15, or even better 13, years.
Whatever you do, DO NOT let anyone see a plot for the entire instrumental record. It will just scare them! Remember information is harmful to ordinary people. And as far as those proxy reconstructions that go back thousands and tens of thousands of years ... we must do everything in our power to discredit them, no matter what the cost!
Eh there are a lot of damn good movies.
I just have others on my list.
Of course there and your list is a matter of choice. But choices have consequence, and the consequence of not having seen V is that you are less qualified to comment on the nature of Anonymous than someone who knows the ending sequence of that movie (and indeed the movie/graphic novel as a whole).
So perhaps you ought to listen to folks here who are clearly arguing from a position of greater knowledge? :p
btw, don't read below this line if you are in the airforce.
Great, now AF will have to ban /. too!
And Maxo, while we're talking about your publishing these classified secrets (with obvious anti-US intent) ... that girl you slept with when you were on holiday in an unspecified European country ...
One of my pet hates too. He's right! People need to learn to swear grammatically. :)
I don't know if it is true but I've read in some media accounts
[citation needed]
that these attacks have in some cases prevented these companies from conducting their regular financial transactions with customers.
Anyone know if this is true?
It would be nice to think they did, but I doubt it. It doesn't seem to be getting much of mention (yet) in the professional security reporting.
If it is true Anon. is doing a lot more than preventing these companies from sharing info via a website..
Yes they would be imposing a cost on companies who are corruptly swapping favors with politicians. Unfortunately the cost is unlikely to persuade these companies from behaving any better in the future.