I use a free crapware blocker (Adaware) and a couple of very simple registry utilities that prevent anyone from setting a registry key without my permission.
Not at all bulletproof, but it works for me.
Strictly speaking, puerperal fever was only *proven* to be contagious in the mid-to-late 19th century. Of course the evidence that it did was strong before then, but the proof only came later.
We are in a stage where the evidence for a link between global warming and climate change is very strong We can take action, or wait until a proof emerges. I am sure many of those who shouted down the pioneering researchers tought making hospitals antiseptic would be too costly.
"There are some facts which are undisputed in the scientific community"
I imagine you can start off just about any statement that way. I also cannot think of a single fact that I would put into that category. Even the most basic mathematical concepts are constantly assaulted.
You can indeed, but most would be incorrect. Heliocentrism is undisputed; evolution is undisputed. What this means is that, although there are no absolute certainties in science, in practice no serious objections to either theory have been raised for many years.*
"1) The greenhouse effect exists. The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere makes the Earth hotter than it would otherwise be"
You are correct in that is the prevailing view that the greenhouse theory is correct. You're also correct in your footnote that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. You did fail to note that water is a FAR more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.
This is not the prevailing view, it is basic physics (i.e., undisputed according to the definition above). If the Earth were a perfect blackbody (absorving and emitting at all frequencies), it would be about 10 C cooler according to the Stephan-Boltzmann law. CO2, H2O and other 3+ atom molecules scatter infrared radiation efficiently (in diferent bands), thus preventing much of it to escape Earth. Temperature raises as a result until thermal equilibrium is achieved by radiating away in other wavelenghts.
"2) Human activity has greatly increased the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the last century or so."
This we don't know. I *think* (research needed) we have measurements to suggest that in the lower atmosphere that's fairly true. We don't have a good way to measure changes in water vapor into the past very accurately at all, however.
As far as CO2 is concerned (and methane and other more exotic molecules such as CFCs) the link is well established. You are right about water vapor, but I dont expect its concentration to change directly due to human activity.
Global warming is taking place, we agree on that
"This at the very least suggests that human activity is the primary cause of global warming"
I disagree. [gives various reasons]
Opinions may vary. It is sugestive to me, but it is at this point only a hypothesis. Some very good objections (such as the ones you pointed out) were raised, and a lot of good research took place to address them.
The main point of my previous post is that *after* testing this hypothesis thorougly, a near consensus emerged among climate scientists saying that the link between human activity and global warming was real. You of course believe the evidence is not strong enough; you are not alone with this opinion, but you are greatly outnumbered.
My other point is that this consensus is not the result of some cabal preventing the publication of dissenting views. That is what I meant by misrepresntation. Well fundamented dissenting opinions do get published, but most scientists after careful review chose to join the consensus.
You are right there is a lot about the climate we dont understand. But our unsderstanding is much better on the much narrower subject of whether human activity contributes significantly to global warming. We have now come to the point where we must decide what (if any) political action should be taken about it. If we are not to take the advice of the vast majority of the people we charged with investigating it, then what? As you well know we cannot expect (let alon e wait for) *unanimity* in the scientific process. The debate will go on, but I believe we have a very good case for taking action now.
__________________________
*As for the most basic mathematical concepts, they are *not* constantly assaulted, since math is axiomatic. Basic physical concepts are however being assaulted, sicne we know they cannot be (simultanoulsy) right. (Sorry, couldnt resist. I am sure you meant the latter rather than the former;-).
There are some facts which are undisputed in the scientific community
1) The greenhouse effect exists. The presence of CO2* in the atmosphere makes the Earth hotter than it would otherwise be (many people, and probably most/.ers would freeze if that wasn't the case)
2) Human activity has greatly increased the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the last century or so.
3) Global warming is taking place. Average temperatures have been raising in the last century or so.
This at the very least suggests that human activity is the primary cause of global warming (which will therefore continue if nothing is done) through the emission of greenhouse gases.
Climate being such a complicated thing, however, legitimate doubts were raised. Papers questioning the link between human activity and global warming were written, peer-reviewed and published. New measurements, theories and computational models were proposed and tested. A debate ensued, from which the near consensual emerging opinion was that said link was real.
Now, scientist are of course fallible humans, and can be as prejudiced as anyone. But the scientific process has shown itself to be better than most at discarding bad theories and accepting better ones.
The human activity - global warming link hypothesis has been subjected to far more scathing and extensive scrutiny than/. or the US congress are able to provide, and survived. Most people who know something about climate now believe it to be true, not because they are tree-hugging fanatics, but because they have reviewed the evidence and became convinced that this is by far the likeliest explanation. There is (and always will be) room for disagreement, but to dismiss the best science available altogether as simple-minded bias is to misunderstand how science works.
___________________________________
* as well as H2O and pretty much any other mollecule with more than 3 atoms.
>>The suits just haven't realized it yet.
Of course they have! Thats why they fight it every way they can.
This is about the obsolecence of the business model, not piracy by the consumers.
Couldn't agree more. Science is hacking nature, in a good way. And the scientific process was open source long before computers were invented.
Kudos for this guy who went against what 'everybody knew' and saved the girl. This is science with concience
Most people know this, but it is worth repeating
The **AA are not figthing piracy, they are figthing obsolecence. They do not *produce* music & films, they distribute it; and now there is way of distributing media globally that bypasses middlemen and connects artists and cosumers (almost) directly.
Today most people have cd burners, and a lot of them copý and distribute copyrigthed stuff. In terms of (real) lost revenue, this is probably equal or larger than P2P. The **AA certainly aren't thrilled about it, but it is P2P that drives them nuts. Not because they lose money, but soon people will find ways of producing, distributing, selling & profiting from music without them.
There will be a media industry then. But it will be different, and hopefully, smarter.
Slashdot Mirror
I use a free crapware blocker (Adaware) and a couple of very simple registry utilities that prevent anyone from setting a registry key without my permission. Not at all bulletproof, but it works for me.
Strictly speaking, puerperal fever was only *proven* to be contagious in the mid-to-late 19th century. Of course the evidence that it did was strong before then, but the proof only came later.
We are in a stage where the evidence for a link between global warming and climate change is very strong We can take action, or wait until a proof emerges. I am sure many of those who shouted down the pioneering researchers tought making hospitals antiseptic would be too costly.
"There are some facts which are undisputed in the scientific community"
;-).
I imagine you can start off just about any statement that way. I also cannot think of a single fact that I would put into that category. Even the most basic mathematical concepts are constantly assaulted.
You can indeed, but most would be incorrect. Heliocentrism is undisputed; evolution is undisputed. What this means is that, although there are no absolute certainties in science, in practice no serious objections to either theory have been raised for many years.*
"1) The greenhouse effect exists. The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere makes the Earth hotter than it would otherwise be"
You are correct in that is the prevailing view that the greenhouse theory is correct. You're also correct in your footnote that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. You did fail to note that water is a FAR more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.
This is not the prevailing view, it is basic physics (i.e., undisputed according to the definition above). If the Earth were a perfect blackbody (absorving and emitting at all frequencies), it would be about 10 C cooler according to the Stephan-Boltzmann law. CO2, H2O and other 3+ atom molecules scatter infrared radiation efficiently (in diferent bands), thus preventing much of it to escape Earth. Temperature raises as a result until thermal equilibrium is achieved by radiating away in other wavelenghts.
"2) Human activity has greatly increased the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the last century or so."
This we don't know. I *think* (research needed) we have measurements to suggest that in the lower atmosphere that's fairly true. We don't have a good way to measure changes in water vapor into the past very accurately at all, however.
As far as CO2 is concerned (and methane and other more exotic molecules such as CFCs) the link is well established. You are right about water vapor, but I dont expect its concentration to change directly due to human activity.
Global warming is taking place, we agree on that
"This at the very least suggests that human activity is the primary cause of global warming"
I disagree. [gives various reasons]
Opinions may vary. It is sugestive to me, but it is at this point only a hypothesis. Some very good objections (such as the ones you pointed out) were raised, and a lot of good research took place to address them.
The main point of my previous post is that *after* testing this hypothesis thorougly, a near consensus emerged among climate scientists saying that the link between human activity and global warming was real. You of course believe the evidence is not strong enough; you are not alone with this opinion, but you are greatly outnumbered.
My other point is that this consensus is not the result of some cabal preventing the publication of dissenting views. That is what I meant by misrepresntation. Well fundamented dissenting opinions do get published, but most scientists after careful review chose to join the consensus.
You are right there is a lot about the climate we dont understand. But our unsderstanding is much better on the much narrower subject of whether human activity contributes significantly to global warming. We have now come to the point where we must decide what (if any) political action should be taken about it. If we are not to take the advice of the vast majority of the people we charged with investigating it, then what? As you well know we cannot expect (let alon e wait for) *unanimity* in the scientific process. The debate will go on, but I believe we have a very good case for taking action now.
__________________________
*As for the most basic mathematical concepts, they are *not* constantly assaulted, since math is axiomatic. Basic physical concepts are however being assaulted, sicne we know they cannot be (simultanoulsy) right. (Sorry, couldnt resist. I am sure you meant the latter rather than the former
There are some facts which are undisputed in the scientific community 1) The greenhouse effect exists. The presence of CO2* in the atmosphere makes the Earth hotter than it would otherwise be (many people, and probably most /.ers would freeze if that wasn't the case)
2) Human activity has greatly increased the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the last century or so.
3) Global warming is taking place. Average temperatures have been raising in the last century or so.
This at the very least suggests that human activity is the primary cause of global warming (which will therefore continue if nothing is done) through the emission of greenhouse gases.
Climate being such a complicated thing, however, legitimate doubts were raised. Papers questioning the link between human activity and global warming were written, peer-reviewed and published. New measurements, theories and computational models were proposed and tested. A debate ensued, from which the near consensual emerging opinion was that said link was real.
Now, scientist are of course fallible humans, and can be as prejudiced as anyone. But the scientific process has shown itself to be better than most at discarding bad theories and accepting better ones.
The human activity - global warming link hypothesis has been subjected to far more scathing and extensive scrutiny than /. or the US congress are able to provide, and survived. Most people who know something about climate now believe it to be true, not because they are tree-hugging fanatics, but because they have reviewed the evidence and became convinced that this is by far the likeliest explanation. There is (and always will be) room for disagreement, but to dismiss the best science available altogether as simple-minded bias is to misunderstand how science works.
___________________________________
* as well as H2O and pretty much any other mollecule with more than 3 atoms.
>>The suits just haven't realized it yet. Of course they have! Thats why they fight it every way they can. This is about the obsolecence of the business model, not piracy by the consumers.
You know, ROTK really means Republic Of The Korea ;-)
Couldn't agree more. Science is hacking nature, in a good way. And the scientific process was open source long before computers were invented. Kudos for this guy who went against what 'everybody knew' and saved the girl. This is science with concience
Most people know this, but it is worth repeating The **AA are not figthing piracy, they are figthing obsolecence. They do not *produce* music & films, they distribute it; and now there is way of distributing media globally that bypasses middlemen and connects artists and cosumers (almost) directly. Today most people have cd burners, and a lot of them copý and distribute copyrigthed stuff. In terms of (real) lost revenue, this is probably equal or larger than P2P. The **AA certainly aren't thrilled about it, but it is P2P that drives them nuts. Not because they lose money, but soon people will find ways of producing, distributing, selling & profiting from music without them. There will be a media industry then. But it will be different, and hopefully, smarter.