Not if a reasonable man would have suspected it was stolen. This law protects the innocent, such as this case, someone who purchased a house through a legitimate real estate agent.
Torrens Title is based on the indefeasibility of title. While "fraud" is one of the few grounds for vitiating such indefeasibility, the fraud must be active on the part of the new registered proprietor (ie owner) or their agents. A reasonable person test has no part to play here, ie. even if a reasonable person would have suspected the vendor was not the lawful owner, short of a fraudulent act on the part of the buyer (or agents), the registration will stand.
If you buy a DVD player...
... you would be buying personal not real property. The legal considerations here are so utterly different that this example is of negative relevance (ie. it is misleading). And again the reasonable person test is not relevant to whether you would have to give it back (though it may be with regard to potential criminal liability).
Nobody is proposing to disallow anyone's free speech here. They just want to know who it was that said it. This is about the constitutionally unprotected right to anonymity.
From what I have read of UK law interpretation a GROSSLY simplistic overview;
What is it that you have read. I've read a number of judgments of the HoL in the Pinochet case and the OP's explanation seems much closer to the opinions of the Law Lords than yours does. But perhaps you have more recent authority?
Country's [sic.], however, can be seen as legal "persons" in their own right.
But only as against other countries under public international law. You have to be a state, for instance, to have standing before the ICJ.
If a British citizen were to commit a crime in the U.S.: the Brit has essentially committed a crime against the U.S. as a legal person...
That sounds like complete nonsense to me. Do you have any authority for that claim?
The source for the quote, no matter how it's reported or by whom, is still the original source.
No, that is wrong. The "source for the quote," your source, is the source from which, or whom, you got the quote. The "original source" is the first person who put the words together. Perhaps the person being quoted, or perhaps someone along the way. Without first tracing the chain of attribution, are in no position to identify the original source. In the meantime you need to exercise some scepticism -which I know is a rare quality among climate deniers.:p
Intentionally confusing your source with a putative original source quoted, is species of academic misconduct which, at better institutions, will earn you a stern reprimand, or in aggravated cases, a disciplinary hearing. It is an academic misdemeanour, for example, if having found the Journal of Imaginary Studies Vol XX, page 42 being quoted verbatim in a textbook, you reference a quote you make as coming from "JoIS vol XX, at 42" without reference to your actual source (as quoted in...). Your source is, and until you delve deeper remains, the source of information you had at your disposal when you made the quote.
If you want to claim that Baillie is misrepresented, and didn't say the things attributed to him, feel free to do so.
I already did. You know reading your source you could be forgiven for thinking that either Rob Wilson or Baillie actually said "oaks were virtually useless as a temperature proxy". This, in fact the sum total of Baillie is quoted as saying in the sources CRN used.
"[the ruling is] a staggering injustice... We are the ones who trudged miles over bogs and fields carrying chain saws. We prepared the samples and - using quite a lot of expertise and judgment - we measured the ring patterns. Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright. Now, for the price of a stamp, Keenan feels he is entitled to be given all this data."
Do you see the danger now in claiming Baillie as the source?
Nor is the phrase a direct quote from Rob Wilson. Tracing back the chain of attribution we see that it is actually Ms Devlin who formulated that sentence, the original source.
Oh I do science pretty much full time - would knowing that had changed how you read my post?
Yes, I would have read it with even greater incredulity and have been far less generous in regard to your intelligence. As it is this claim caused me to examine your website to see what kind of scientific activity could leave its practitioner so wildly uniformed as to how science is actually conducted.
I fear I must, as our American counsins are want to say, "call Bullshit." It appears most if your time is spent working on mobile communications technology and as an advocate for FOSS, which however admirable, hardly amounts to "doing science."
I wrote "new science" - not "evolution of".
Not true. You wrote "new findings in science." New findings are made with some frequency. The complete overturning of "settled science" far more rarely. I note that the example you gave to illustrate your dubious category "new science" is much more recent than century old example. Though clearly it is not so readily fashioned into illustration suggesting that consensus resisting individuals provide the motive force of scientific progress.
You are simply wrong when you write, as in an earlier post, that "we'd never get anywhere" if "we practiced 'science by consensus.'" It is only by accepting, at least provisionally, certain questions as settled, and going on to ask newer more interesting questions based on the settled ones that science moves on. People if your ilk who seem unable to move beyond the questions settled in the late 80s and early 90s would, with some intent, condemn climate science to an eternal groundhog day. "Science is not conducted by consensus," is in fact the "worn out" mantra.
My source was not the New York Times. My source was dendrologists, as quoted by the New York Times. That is not a small difference.
It is also untrue. Apparently you don't understand proper attribution either. Your source was a disinformation site by the name of "Climate Research News." Their source was The Times (and not the New York Times). Now you may be in personal communication what Dr Baillie, I don't know, but he was certainly not the source you cited. And even had Dr Baillie been your source his casual comments really don't carry enough weight to refute published work. You really don't understand that, do you?
If you want to read more of their work, I'd direct you to a paper. Would Climate signal in tree-ring chronologies in a temperate climate: A multi-species approach (Suarez, Butler, Baillie, 2009) do?
Thanks to IICV linking to the actual science, I've already read it. Thank you.
Now had you linked or cited the actual paper in the first place you might have spared yourself being associated with CRN, however that actual paper would not have born out your outrageous remark:
To a scientist it means "tree rings aren't good temperature proxies". You know, what the dendrologists have been saying the whole time.
In fact the paper says nearly the opposite.
Instead you were forced to rely on the cheap propaganda of CRN which apart from dishonestly (or was it only clumsily) putting journalist's words into scientist's mouths, sought to create the misapprehension that the problem with Irish oak is relevant to the tree-ring problem Mann et al. sought to solve! Attempt to understand that before you weasel on about the word "good," (which means something other than "unproblematic" in any case).
But hey, what do I know.
About science? Very little indeed.
I'm apparently "wilfully ignorant"
More than apparently so. You are also somewhat economical with the truth.
Most new findings in science breaks with established tradition.
That statement alone makes it abundantly clear that have neither worked in research, nor undertaken any serious study of science. It is simply inconceivable that anyone who has spent several hundred hours using abstracting services and reading papers in any branch of the natural science in which advances have been made over the last half century, could honestly make a statement so at odds with scientific reality.
Moving from the fact that isolated instances of paradigm shift exist, to argue that most new findings, or even a hundreth of one percent of new findings, involve breaking with established tradition is a radical failure of logic. The example you cite is nearly a century old. Doesn't the mere fact that you actually know about the controversy, and are citing it as an example, tell you how rare this kind of event is? Use your brain man!
Now I won't call you an idiot. You are clearly an intelligent person, but your intelligence is matched in measure by an jaw-dropping ignorance about how modern science is conducted. This unfounded sense of entitlement you display, in delivering with such confidence your "expert" opinions, is perhaps the result of this dangerous mix of intelligence and ignorance. It certainly makes you the perfect victim of the kind of disinformation proffered by the site you linked to above.
Look at that page a little critically. Foolishly I followed it in the vain hope it might lead me to some interesting critical dendochronology. But in place of any link to actual science, we have what? A quote from The Times!
Good God man! The lights should be flashing, "Danger Will Robertson, Danger!" Instead you swallow the contents without exercising an iota of scepticism. And worse you expose yourself by actually linking to it. In public! For all to see! How terribly embarassing. Put it away!
As the scientists here have freely admitted, the use of tree-ring data is not without problems. Far from it. Nor, I must admit, do I find the solution proposed by Prof Mann entirely satisfactory. However the idea simply to discard this line of evidence totally, is insane. With help from the Bad Analogies Dept., it's like discovering you have astigmatism and poking out both eyes. Only given the clear and present danger posed by anthropogenic climate change doing so at this juncture, is like poking them out when you have just crossed the first lane on an eight lane highway!
On the other hand, had science historically been forced to conform to the obsessional purism espoused by you armchair philosophers of science, its progress would so effectively have been stymied that we would neither have reached the population nor acquired the technology to make any significant impact on the planet's athmosphere. Unfortunately it is now too late for your brand of wilfull ignorance.
Even if the investigation comes up empty, as I expect it will.
If it comes up empty?!
Give me 10 odd years of your private emails, a presumption of guilt, editorial control and a scant regard for fairness and you just watch what I can come up with!
There was plenty of skepticism about evolution (or at least, Darwinian evolution) when the theory first appeared.
The most recent figures I've seen on this topic show that only 40% of Americans accept Darwinian evolution today. The whole idiotic (or should that read suicidal) rejection of science in regard to climate change is a symptom of a much wider malaise.
I'm sure it will be bias somehow and support climate change
Its not so much that these logs will "support climate change," by which I guess you mean "will support the scientific understanding of why climate change is happening," what it will do is help us give us some insight about the extent of climate change. More specifically it will give us some insight in an area where we do not have good historical records of climate before the industrial revolution, and an area where the effects of climate change are already being acutely felt (ie. low-lying coral-reef based nations).
Well I didn't know about that quote, but I did guess that you chose Space Odessey because of stars... I just ran with the fact that we have had a few European films censored over the years.
Well thank goodness for this. I know I'm often tempted to send out messages so immoral that I shock myself! So I'm glad there's someone with my best interests (and the best interests of society at large) at heart who is going to take the time to censor the messages I send. Isn't it nice when those kind people in the government relieve you of any need for self-restraint!
Through-out my schoolastic life I was never ever taught anything other than the greenhouse effect is going on as we speak and global warming is all our fault. The curriculum over here never even covers possible alternative theories
Well that's probably because you were being taught this stuff in science class, and the science here is so clear. There are no credible alternative theories.
n every other aspect of science we were taught alternatives to established theories to compare the merits and why one theory is more valid than others, from Ether to creationism.
You were taught that Creationism as an alternative theory to evolutionary theory?! It's demonstrably untrue that the universe is only 6000 years old, so I'm sorry Creationism isn't a credible alternative theory either... just as well you were not misinformed about global climate change as well!
We're told to question everything throughout science...
What a load of liberal claptrap! What position is a 16 yr old to question anything about science? Your teacher deserves a good spanking for that one!
There has never been a debate about the cons of the greenhouse effect theory...
Which planet did you say you were from again?
By flat out saying "you're wrong" to deniers you acheive nothing but make them more determined.
Yes, that's a problem, but the fact is you are wrong! If you become more determined to deny reality, when your errors are pointed out, the only advice I can really give is to seek help from a mental health professional.
The critisisms should be in the public arena so that people can feel their making their own decisions rather than feel they're being given propoganda.
Most people simply lack the expertise to make any informed decision. The problem is that the criticisms are being made in the public arena (outside the public scientific arena), and that they are being made by experts in mass-communication and spin, not by scientists. Thus the many members of the public (and especially in those countries where the disinformation dollar has predominantly been spent) are refusing to accept the reality of global warming, or the expert opinion that it is anthropogenic in nature. You yourself, seem to have fallen vicitim.
This is EXACTLY what the first article did. It picked a VERY few articles, that may or may not have been false, and attacked them. This is called Cherry Picking. Such a methodology is foolish and proves nothing.
Well actually the first article did even more than that. It cherry-picked within the cherry-picked articles, ie. of the 4 possible scenarios Hansen presented in a 1989 (nice to see Monckton address the current state of research), picked a single one (one that Hansen had presented as one of the two less probable scenarios), and then criticised the paper on the basis that the worst-case scenario hadn't occured (even though the scenario Hansen had floated as the most likely proved to be spot on the money!)
Problem:
Too Many people - not enough higher education.
Solution (the one employed in almost every democratic country in the world). Allow the limited places to be filled based on prior academic performance. Either by some national exams, or each university's individual matriculation exams.
Soon all the education and wealth will be in the hands of a single royal dynasty of the perpetually rich families.
As opposed to the solution above, where the education is distributed among the most intelligent, whereas the wealth still resides in the hands of a few baronial dynasties.:)
You don't need education to maintain your wealth.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've been able to come up with.
It depends whether you mean pure capitalism, or some hybrid form of politcal-economic organisation based upon the centrality of the market system. IMHO, the hybrids seem to perform better.
The problem that people are sometime referring to is that we seem to be abandoing the idea of a pragmatic pluralism for an ideological purer form of capitalism.
The benefits of capitalism happen to include the mass availability of computers and high-speed networking.
The mass availability yes. Remember, however that the original development of these technologies was almost entirely driven by non-market forces; (ie. military, space race &tc). The role of the market in commoditising these technologies (incl enhancing (faster processing, more memory, miniturisation &tc as well as making them affordable), can of course not be denied. So this is probably a good case-in-point of a hybrid system providing positive outcomes.
You did check out the links provided by the parent poster, didn't you? Turns out this paper is a total sham, and the supposed warming in the 15th Century is only apparent when you censor out that data that shows it wasn't so. In an argument about climatic science between climatic scientists and economists, the scientists win, go figure!
It's a bit of a moot point really, since most scientists prefer to go by the instrumental record, which only dates back to the mid 19th Century, excatly because of the methodological uncertainties inherent in divining 'global' temperatures before that time.
In any case I wouldn't be banking on calmer weather any time soon...
As another non-American who actually read the article, I think the argument goes like this:
The government should not use tax-collected funds to enter into the markey place in direct competition with private corporations. Especially when they use these funds to completely undermine competition by giving the goods or services away for free
I hasten to add, that I disagree almost completely. While it is true that the government must take care not seriously to harm private companies in that market place (I don't think Elsivier looks in too much trouble), the provision of quality free information often acts as an adjunct to, and reaches an audience other than, that which the market is able to provide. But then again you could call me a non-American commie or something equally enlightened.:)
Wow impossible. I just can't imagine how you could design a Web page, or an album cover for that matter, without being able to code a bubble sort. They must find it soooooo difficult.
the only Internet connectivity was through ethernet which didn't help at the beach. I enlightened the proprietor about 802.11b and Access Points. I wonder if they're set up by now?
You want access at the beach?! Umm wasn't the reason your wife took you there to get away from the monitor for a minute?
If humanity is to choose a long term goal, should it be to learn as much as we can about the universe, or should it be to produce and consume TV shows for the next few billion years?
I guess learning about the universe is alright providing we can find out about it on Discovery Chanel.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if a reasonable man would have suspected it was stolen. This law protects the innocent, such as this case, someone who purchased a house through a legitimate real estate agent.
Torrens Title is based on the indefeasibility of title. While "fraud" is one of the few grounds for vitiating such indefeasibility, the fraud must be active on the part of the new registered proprietor (ie owner) or their agents. A reasonable person test has no part to play here, ie. even if a reasonable person would have suspected the vendor was not the lawful owner, short of a fraudulent act on the part of the buyer (or agents), the registration will stand.
If you buy a DVD player ...
Isn't free speech allowed unless you're directly threating [sic.] someone?
Nobody is proposing to disallow anyone's free speech here. They just want to know who it was that said it. This is about the constitutionally unprotected right to anonymity.
From what I have read of UK law interpretation a GROSSLY simplistic overview;
What is it that you have read. I've read a number of judgments of the HoL in the Pinochet case and the OP's explanation seems much closer to the opinions of the Law Lords than yours does. But perhaps you have more recent authority?
Country's [sic.], however, can be seen as legal "persons" in their own right.
But only as against other countries under public international law. You have to be a state, for instance, to have standing before the ICJ.
If a British citizen were to commit a crime in the U.S.: the Brit has essentially committed a crime against the U.S. as a legal person ...
That sounds like complete nonsense to me. Do you have any authority for that claim?
The source for the quote, no matter how it's reported or by whom, is still the original source.
No, that is wrong. The "source for the quote," your source, is the source from which, or whom, you got the quote. The "original source" is the first person who put the words together. Perhaps the person being quoted, or perhaps someone along the way. Without first tracing the chain of attribution, are in no position to identify the original source. In the meantime you need to exercise some scepticism -which I know is a rare quality among climate deniers. :p
Intentionally confusing your source with a putative original source quoted, is species of academic misconduct which, at better institutions, will earn you a stern reprimand, or in aggravated cases, a disciplinary hearing. It is an academic misdemeanour, for example, if having found the Journal of Imaginary Studies Vol XX, page 42 being quoted verbatim in a textbook, you reference a quote you make as coming from "JoIS vol XX, at 42" without reference to your actual source (as quoted in ...). Your source is, and until you delve deeper remains, the source of information you had at your disposal when you made the quote.
If you want to claim that Baillie is misrepresented, and didn't say the things attributed to him, feel free to do so.
I already did. You know reading your source you could be forgiven for thinking that either Rob Wilson or Baillie actually said "oaks were virtually useless as a temperature proxy". This, in fact the sum total of Baillie is quoted as saying in the sources CRN used.
"[the ruling is] a staggering injustice ... We are the ones who trudged miles over bogs and fields carrying chain saws. We prepared the samples and - using quite a lot of expertise and judgment - we measured the ring patterns. Each ring pattern therefore has strong claims to be our copyright. Now, for the price of a stamp, Keenan feels he is entitled to be given all this data."
BRW, the source for that is the Guardian article.
Do you see the danger now in claiming Baillie as the source?
Nor is the phrase a direct quote from Rob Wilson. Tracing back the chain of attribution we see that it is actually Ms Devlin who formulated that sentence, the original source.
Oh I do science pretty much full time - would knowing that had changed how you read my post?
Yes, I would have read it with even greater incredulity and have been far less generous in regard to your intelligence. As it is this claim caused me to examine your website to see what kind of scientific activity could leave its practitioner so wildly uniformed as to how science is actually conducted.
I fear I must, as our American counsins are want to say, "call Bullshit." It appears most if your time is spent working on mobile communications technology and as an advocate for FOSS, which however admirable, hardly amounts to "doing science."
I wrote "new science" - not "evolution of".
Not true. You wrote "new findings in science." New findings are made with some frequency. The complete overturning of "settled science" far more rarely. I note that the example you gave to illustrate your dubious category "new science" is much more recent than century old example. Though clearly it is not so readily fashioned into illustration suggesting that consensus resisting individuals provide the motive force of scientific progress.
You are simply wrong when you write, as in an earlier post, that "we'd never get anywhere" if "we practiced 'science by consensus.'" It is only by accepting, at least provisionally, certain questions as settled, and going on to ask newer more interesting questions based on the settled ones that science moves on. People if your ilk who seem unable to move beyond the questions settled in the late 80s and early 90s would, with some intent, condemn climate science to an eternal groundhog day. "Science is not conducted by consensus," is in fact the "worn out" mantra.
My source was not the New York Times. My source was dendrologists, as quoted by the New York Times. That is not a small difference.
It is also untrue. Apparently you don't understand proper attribution either. Your source was a disinformation site by the name of "Climate Research News." Their source was The Times (and not the New York Times). Now you may be in personal communication what Dr Baillie, I don't know, but he was certainly not the source you cited. And even had Dr Baillie been your source his casual comments really don't carry enough weight to refute published work. You really don't understand that, do you?
If you want to read more of their work, I'd direct you to a paper. Would Climate signal in tree-ring chronologies in a temperate climate: A multi-species approach (Suarez, Butler, Baillie, 2009) do?
Thanks to IICV linking to the actual science, I've already read it. Thank you.
Now had you linked or cited the actual paper in the first place you might have spared yourself being associated with CRN, however that actual paper would not have born out your outrageous remark:
To a scientist it means "tree rings aren't good temperature proxies". You know, what the dendrologists have been saying the whole time.
In fact the paper says nearly the opposite.
Instead you were forced to rely on the cheap propaganda of CRN which apart from dishonestly (or was it only clumsily) putting journalist's words into scientist's mouths, sought to create the misapprehension that the problem with Irish oak is relevant to the tree-ring problem Mann et al. sought to solve! Attempt to understand that before you weasel on about the word "good," (which means something other than "unproblematic" in any case).
But hey, what do I know.
About science? Very little indeed.
I'm apparently "wilfully ignorant"
More than apparently so. You are also somewhat economical with the truth.
Most new findings in science breaks with established tradition.
That statement alone makes it abundantly clear that have neither worked in research, nor undertaken any serious study of science. It is simply inconceivable that anyone who has spent several hundred hours using abstracting services and reading papers in any branch of the natural science in which advances have been made over the last half century, could honestly make a statement so at odds with scientific reality.
Moving from the fact that isolated instances of paradigm shift exist, to argue that most new findings, or even a hundreth of one percent of new findings, involve breaking with established tradition is a radical failure of logic. The example you cite is nearly a century old. Doesn't the mere fact that you actually know about the controversy, and are citing it as an example, tell you how rare this kind of event is? Use your brain man!
Now I won't call you an idiot. You are clearly an intelligent person, but your intelligence is matched in measure by an jaw-dropping ignorance about how modern science is conducted. This unfounded sense of entitlement you display, in delivering with such confidence your "expert" opinions, is perhaps the result of this dangerous mix of intelligence and ignorance. It certainly makes you the perfect victim of the kind of disinformation proffered by the site you linked to above.
Look at that page a little critically. Foolishly I followed it in the vain hope it might lead me to some interesting critical dendochronology. But in place of any link to actual science, we have what? A quote from The Times!
Good God man! The lights should be flashing, "Danger Will Robertson, Danger!" Instead you swallow the contents without exercising an iota of scepticism. And worse you expose yourself by actually linking to it. In public! For all to see! How terribly embarassing. Put it away!
As the scientists here have freely admitted, the use of tree-ring data is not without problems. Far from it. Nor, I must admit, do I find the solution proposed by Prof Mann entirely satisfactory. However the idea simply to discard this line of evidence totally, is insane. With help from the Bad Analogies Dept., it's like discovering you have astigmatism and poking out both eyes. Only given the clear and present danger posed by anthropogenic climate change doing so at this juncture, is like poking them out when you have just crossed the first lane on an eight lane highway!
On the other hand, had science historically been forced to conform to the obsessional purism espoused by you armchair philosophers of science, its progress would so effectively have been stymied that we would neither have reached the population nor acquired the technology to make any significant impact on the planet's athmosphere. Unfortunately it is now too late for your brand of wilfull ignorance.
Even if the investigation comes up empty, as I expect it will.
If it comes up empty?!
Give me 10 odd years of your private emails, a presumption of guilt, editorial control and a scant regard for fairness and you just watch what I can come up with!
There was plenty of skepticism about evolution (or at least, Darwinian evolution) when the theory first appeared.
The most recent figures I've seen on this topic show that only 40% of Americans accept Darwinian evolution today. The whole idiotic (or should that read suicidal) rejection of science in regard to climate change is a symptom of a much wider malaise.
I'm sure it will be bias somehow and support climate change
Its not so much that these logs will "support climate change," by which I guess you mean "will support the scientific understanding of why climate change is happening," what it will do is help us give us some insight about the extent of climate change. More specifically it will give us some insight in an area where we do not have good historical records of climate before the industrial revolution, and an area where the effects of climate change are already being acutely felt (ie. low-lying coral-reef based nations).
Too subtle Denzacar, far too suble. But I guess it goes to prove the truth of your sig.
Well I didn't know about that quote, but I did guess that you chose Space Odessey because of stars ... I just ran with the fact that we have had a few European films censored over the years.
Not as far as I know. We usually only ban European films and media that are "too educational."
it's full of stars...
Stars? What start? It's coming through alright for me here in .au ... what country are you reading that post in?
Well thank goodness for this. I know I'm often tempted to send out messages so immoral that I shock myself! So I'm glad there's someone with my best interests (and the best interests of society at large) at heart who is going to take the time to censor the messages I send. Isn't it nice when those kind people in the government relieve you of any need for self-restraint!
Through-out my schoolastic life I was never ever taught anything other than the greenhouse effect is going on as we speak and global warming is all our fault. The curriculum over here never even covers possible alternative theories
Well that's probably because you were being taught this stuff in science class, and the science here is so clear. There are no credible alternative theories.
n every other aspect of science we were taught alternatives to established theories to compare the merits and why one theory is more valid than others, from Ether to creationism.
You were taught that Creationism as an alternative theory to evolutionary theory?! It's demonstrably untrue that the universe is only 6000 years old, so I'm sorry Creationism isn't a credible alternative theory either ... just as well you were not misinformed about global climate change as well!
We're told to question everything throughout science ...
What a load of liberal claptrap! What position is a 16 yr old to question anything about science? Your teacher deserves a good spanking for that one!
There has never been a debate about the cons of the greenhouse effect theory ...
Which planet did you say you were from again?
By flat out saying "you're wrong" to deniers you acheive nothing but make them more determined.
Yes, that's a problem, but the fact is you are wrong! If you become more determined to deny reality, when your errors are pointed out, the only advice I can really give is to seek help from a mental health professional.
The critisisms should be in the public arena so that people can feel their making their own decisions rather than feel they're being given propoganda.
Most people simply lack the expertise to make any informed decision. The problem is that the criticisms are being made in the public arena (outside the public scientific arena), and that they are being made by experts in mass-communication and spin, not by scientists. Thus the many members of the public (and especially in those countries where the disinformation dollar has predominantly been spent) are refusing to accept the reality of global warming, or the expert opinion that it is anthropogenic in nature. You yourself, seem to have fallen vicitim.
This is EXACTLY what the first article did. It picked a VERY few articles, that may or may not have been false, and attacked them. This is called Cherry Picking. Such a methodology is foolish and proves nothing.
Well actually the first article did even more than that. It cherry-picked within the cherry-picked articles, ie. of the 4 possible scenarios Hansen presented in a 1989 (nice to see Monckton address the current state of research), picked a single one (one that Hansen had presented as one of the two less probable scenarios), and then criticised the paper on the basis that the worst-case scenario hadn't occured (even though the scenario Hansen had floated as the most likely proved to be spot on the money!)
Problem:
Too Many people - not enough higher education.
Solution (the one employed in almost every democratic country in the world). Allow the limited places to be filled based on prior academic performance. Either by some national exams, or each university's individual matriculation exams.
Soon all the education and wealth will be in the hands of a single royal dynasty of the perpetually rich families.
As opposed to the solution above, where the education is distributed among the most intelligent, whereas the wealth still resides in the hands of a few baronial dynasties. :)
You don't need education to maintain your wealth.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've been able to come up with.
It depends whether you mean pure capitalism, or some hybrid form of politcal-economic organisation based upon the centrality of the market system. IMHO, the hybrids seem to perform better.
The problem that people are sometime referring to is that we seem to be abandoing the idea of a pragmatic pluralism for an ideological purer form of capitalism.
The benefits of capitalism happen to include the mass availability of computers and high-speed networking.
The mass availability yes. Remember, however that the original development of these technologies was almost entirely driven by non-market forces; (ie. military, space race &tc). The role of the market in commoditising these technologies (incl enhancing (faster processing, more memory, miniturisation &tc as well as making them affordable), can of course not be denied. So this is probably a good case-in-point of a hybrid system providing positive outcomes.
I think my version is better
I agree. On the other hand I consider you an arrogant sod for saying so! ;)
Except in this case it's the anti-environmental critics that have been caught out censoring data to fake their results.
You did check out the links provided by the parent poster, didn't you? Turns out this paper is a total sham, and the supposed warming in the 15th Century is only apparent when you censor out that data that shows it wasn't so. In an argument about climatic science between climatic scientists and economists, the scientists win, go figure!
It's a bit of a moot point really, since most scientists prefer to go by the instrumental record, which only dates back to the mid 19th Century, excatly because of the methodological uncertainties inherent in divining 'global' temperatures before that time.
In any case I wouldn't be banking on calmer weather any time soon ...
As another non-American who actually read the article, I think the argument goes like this:
The government should not use tax-collected funds to enter into the markey place in direct competition with private corporations. Especially when they use these funds to completely undermine competition by giving the goods or services away for free
I hasten to add, that I disagree almost completely. While it is true that the government must take care not seriously to harm private companies in that market place (I don't think Elsivier looks in too much trouble), the provision of quality free information often acts as an adjunct to, and reaches an audience other than, that which the market is able to provide. But then again you could call me a non-American commie or something equally enlightened. :)
Wow impossible. I just can't imagine how you could design a Web page, or an album cover for that matter, without being able to code a bubble sort. They must find it soooooo difficult.
You want access at the beach?! Umm wasn't the reason your wife took you there to get away from the monitor for a minute?
I guess learning about the universe is alright providing we can find out about it on Discovery Chanel.