Thanks for the link! It's very informative with this definition: "A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong."
Oh, wait! Use of "could" makes the entire statement unfalsifiable and therefor [sic] non-scientific. D'oh!
I think the "could" in the headline indicates a situation that is potentially avoidable (whether through intervention or through chance). It could be falsified under this scenario: That future circumstances match those of the model making the prediction, but the prediction fails to materialize.
There is a very interesting read, which is a review of two books, one a biography and the other an autobiography. The article appeared in New Republic sometime in the late 80s or early 90s. It can be found here.
The story is long and complicated. Excerpt: "Whatever his reasons for turning against communism, he remained left of center long after he did so. As late as 1952, by which date he had been publicly denouncing Communists for six years, the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee declined to endorse him for an open House seat because they thought he was too liberal. It's tantalizing to speculate on what might have been had the Democrats of Los Angeles not made this bonehead decision. Would Representative Reagan have become Senator Reagan? Might he have ended up as JFK's running mate? Would he have drifted to the right and become a marginal crank like Sam Yorty? Or would he have stayed left and won the White House four or eight years earlier than he did? And — most delicious thought of all — would the ultimate sneer-word of today's conservatives be not McGovernism or Carterism, but Reaganism?"
Yes, the deniers are raising their voices loudly as if they are genuinely alarmed (and they are, since action on climate change would threaten their oil profits). The realists just go on with the science.
"Did you read the article? They arbitrarily increased all buoy temperature data."
I'm trying to figure out if you have a reading comprehension problem (since you apparently did read at least a portion of the article), or simply don't know what "arbitrary" means.
Er, did you read the Forbes link before you shared it? It was about sea ice. The ice loss in evidence is land ice. You are trying to imply that there is a contradiction when there is none?
Moreover, the link is to an opinion piece, not a news source. No wonder it was rejected.
But if you want to talk about the Forbes piece, it claims there is *no* polar sea ice retreat (and the headline is worse, it claims there is no polar ice retreat at all, sea or otherwise). It fails to distinguish between Arctic sea ice (which is retreating) and Antarctic (which is advancing). The latter seems to be occurring due to, among other factors, the inrush of fresh water from melting Antarctic glaciers -- which lowers salinity and raises the freezing point. Really sloppy work by the writer. (Actually I doubt that he was being sloppy. I'm sure he's smart enough to know about this stuff. I suspect he was being disingenuous.)
Sadly, the retreat in the Arctic is primarily in the summer, so it lowers the albedo of the region when that region is in continuous sunlight.
Sadly, the advance in the Antarctic is primarily in the winter, so it raises the albedo of the region when that region is in continuous darkness. Big help, huh?
"The volume of sea ice – that is, how thick the Arctic ice is..."
Er, no, "how thick the ice is" is called "thickness". Volume is thickness times area (or more precisely, thickness integrated over area).
That said, two data points (last year's area and this year's area) do not a trend make. I can't believe how many people don't get that (or enjoy telling lies so much that they don't care that it contradicts reason).
Mod parent up. I wish we could count on our respective parties to uphold some core values. I don't vote for Democrats because I expect some return in the form of liberalization of government or society. Disappointment after disappointment has taught me not to do that. I vote for Democrats because I don't want more Scalias and Thomases deciding what the Constitution really means, and because I don't want the Bushes and Palins and Ryans and Romneys of the world pushing their crazy world views on us all.
1. I've never called for censorship. I do like people to act civilly, but in any kind of public forum that can't be enforced, it's just a wish. 2. I'm not so much pro-gun control as I am opposed to letting one organization have such a powerful pull on what laws get made that we can't even expect our lawmakers to engage in a legitimate discourse on the topic. 3. I have no idea what you are talking about. 4. Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Maybe you need to talk to some real liberals instead of listening to stereotypes of them on TV.
Suppose the death star gets about halfway done, and the requirement to convert to metric kicks in. All those parts machined to imperial units will have to be scrapped and the whole thing rebuilt.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds a lot like a pyramid scheme -- this could be illegal.
Thanks for the link! It's very informative with this definition: "A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong."
Oh, wait! Use of "could" makes the entire statement unfalsifiable and therefor [sic] non-scientific. D'oh!
I think the "could" in the headline indicates a situation that is potentially avoidable (whether through intervention or through chance). It could be falsified under this scenario: That future circumstances match those of the model making the prediction, but the prediction fails to materialize.
It gives them less need to do any bribing. They just go out and do what they want with no resistance.
There is a very interesting read, which is a review of two books, one a biography and the other an autobiography. The article appeared in New Republic sometime in the late 80s or early 90s. It can be found here.
The story is long and complicated. Excerpt: "Whatever his reasons for turning against communism, he remained left of center long after he did so. As late as 1952, by which date he had been publicly denouncing Communists for six years, the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee declined to endorse him for an open House seat because they thought he was too liberal. It's tantalizing to speculate on what might have been had the Democrats of Los Angeles not made this bonehead decision. Would Representative Reagan have become Senator Reagan? Might he have ended up as JFK's running mate? Would he have drifted to the right and become a marginal crank like Sam Yorty? Or would he have stayed left and won the White House four or eight years earlier than he did? And — most delicious thought of all — would the ultimate sneer-word of today's conservatives be not McGovernism or Carterism, but Reaganism?"
Yes, the deniers are raising their voices loudly as if they are genuinely alarmed (and they are, since action on climate change would threaten their oil profits). The realists just go on with the science.
Who are you addressing?
60 Megabits of what?
"Did you read the article? They arbitrarily increased all buoy temperature data."
I'm trying to figure out if you have a reading comprehension problem (since you apparently did read at least a portion of the article), or simply don't know what "arbitrary" means.
We may have a mixed future, where we get our AC from the Edison company, and our DC from Tesla.
Oh, I'm sure *that* will be impartial. (rolls eyes}
Bye Felicia
THE USA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN REDUCING ITS CO2 EVERY YEAR.
Let me repeat that:
THE USA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN REDUCING ITS CO2 EVERY YEAR.
If you don't believe me, look it up. The US is doing something. The EU and Asia are NOT.
And we are doing it by outsourcing a lot of our production overseas. Yay us!
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
Haha, I had seen the second site you linked, but not the first one. It's just as funny!!!
"Southern" = the part closer to the south pole
Would not posting a submission whose only source is a biased opinion piece (more than) hint at a bias?
Too bad that area gain is in the winter time. Not much incident heat when you are a polar region pointed away from the Sun.
Er, did you read the Forbes link before you shared it? It was about sea ice. The ice loss in evidence is land ice. You are trying to imply that there is a contradiction when there is none?
Moreover, the link is to an opinion piece, not a news source. No wonder it was rejected.
But if you want to talk about the Forbes piece, it claims there is *no* polar sea ice retreat (and the headline is worse, it claims there is no polar ice retreat at all, sea or otherwise). It fails to distinguish between Arctic sea ice (which is retreating) and Antarctic (which is advancing). The latter seems to be occurring due to, among other factors, the inrush of fresh water from melting Antarctic glaciers -- which lowers salinity and raises the freezing point. Really sloppy work by the writer. (Actually I doubt that he was being sloppy. I'm sure he's smart enough to know about this stuff. I suspect he was being disingenuous.)
Sadly, the retreat in the Arctic is primarily in the summer, so it lowers the albedo of the region when that region is in continuous sunlight.
Sadly, the advance in the Antarctic is primarily in the winter, so it raises the albedo of the region when that region is in continuous darkness. Big help, huh?
"The volume of sea ice – that is, how thick the Arctic ice is..."
Er, no, "how thick the ice is" is called "thickness". Volume is thickness times area (or more precisely, thickness integrated over area).
That said, two data points (last year's area and this year's area) do not a trend make. I can't believe how many people don't get that (or enjoy telling lies so much that they don't care that it contradicts reason).
What tipped you off?
Right : more economic freedom
Well...Maybe, if you happen to be a corporation.
Mod parent up. I wish we could count on our respective parties to uphold some core values. I don't vote for Democrats because I expect some return in the form of liberalization of government or society. Disappointment after disappointment has taught me not to do that. I vote for Democrats because I don't want more Scalias and Thomases deciding what the Constitution really means, and because I don't want the Bushes and Palins and Ryans and Romneys of the world pushing their crazy world views on us all.
1. I've never called for censorship. I do like people to act civilly, but in any kind of public forum that can't be enforced, it's just a wish.
2. I'm not so much pro-gun control as I am opposed to letting one organization have such a powerful pull on what laws get made that we can't even expect our lawmakers to engage in a legitimate discourse on the topic.
3. I have no idea what you are talking about.
4. Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Maybe you need to talk to some real liberals instead of listening to stereotypes of them on TV.
Suppose the death star gets about halfway done, and the requirement to convert to metric kicks in. All those parts machined to imperial units will have to be scrapped and the whole thing rebuilt.
Sigh. Venus gets no love. Ironic, isn't it?
There are Windows Phone users?