Sigh. (I know it's bad to complain about something free, but) It's tough trying to figure out a sentence like:
Of the effect of the current savings technique LongRun also for the virtual Northbridge the responsible person development conductor Marc meat man, by the way a German, could convince me in the Transmeta lab.
Wish I knew German, if only to see how babelfish ended up with "Marc meat man."
Pinhead, nobody asked you to come here either. But unlike you, anonymous shit for brains, I've been here for two years, log in, and defend my comments. Anybody who thinks Diallo was murdered for being black is probably too embarrassed by his stupidity to have a username. Four blacks on the jury had the opportunity to find the cops guilty of racist murder. They saw all of the evidence. You didn't. And they voted to acquit.
Yes, it was an upsetting tragedy. But the cops were unanimously acquitted by a jury of their peers - almost half of whom were minorities who would, presumably, be quite sensitive to the implications of roving white cops mindlessly killing an innocent black man. Mourn the death, but get off my ass.
You're positively psycho. I didn't defend the cops. Just corrected the post. They did indeed yell first. It's clear you're just findning an excuse to grandstand. Why don't you find an AOL board or someting more appropriate to your powers of analysis?
It's a good thing you're not a NYC cop. You're exhibiting more pent-up anger and disproportionate reaction than the cops you're criticizing.
You are singularly unimpressed by facts, or evidence, or serious scientific research, offering only the "maritime logs of whalers." If you can cite reputable science (and I don't mean pop mags like New Scientist), published in peer-reviewed journals, that support your take on the issue, then please do so. I've not yet come across them.
Your argument is nothing more than cynical conspiracy theories, supported by nothing more than your assertions. Your views of the media and the "vested interests with way too much money" are almost cartoonish in their silliness. You are, in short, a crank.
In the original post, I said...great monarchies of Continental Europe in the first part of this century...
The French Revolution is not in that time span. And England is not on the Continent. You should read (or think) more carefully.
It is worth pointing out, however, that the British monarchy gave up an entire empire in the first half of the century, most of it voluntarily. But I had in mind the Hapsburg empire, with the Emperor voluntarily acceding to his dethronement. You don't see Otto von Hapsburg (the current heir) scrapping for his throne, either. He is a very productive meber of the European Parliament from Belgium. The Hapsburgs see their duty as serving Europe in whatever capacity is needed. Two more examples of monarchs voluntarily giving up power for a perceived greater good of the country would be the Kings of Spain and Greece. Of course Juan Carlos still rules over Spain, but has no real executive power anymore.
PS - Ad hominem means, literally, at or to the man. I attacked his arguments and a word he used. A hypothetical ad hominem attack would have been more like "Tilde, you are a colossal dumbass, even dumber than crush!"
Once again you are making the most hilariously inept arguments. The entire issue of the corrections to the satellite measurements was resolved a couple of years ago. The corrected data, explained in the link by a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA, shows none of the so-called "signatures" of global warming that are predicted by the alarmist computer models of the atmosphere.
More amusing, though, is your claim that measuring the temperature of the lower atmosphere will tell us less about global warming than measuring at a few hundred stations on the ground. Are you aware that "global warming" refers to much, much, much more of the atmosphere than that which exists right outside those stations? In any event, the discrepancy between surface and satellite measurements occurs primarily over ocean, where surface measurement is least accurate. There is virtually no discrepancy between satellite and surface data in North America, where surface data is most accurate. Furthermore, the satellite data is calibrated carefully with baloon thermometers. A good concise NASA article explaining the accuracy of satellite measurements is found here.
The fact, you simply want to ignore excellent data when it does not bear out your foregone conclusion of imminent man-made catastrophe. Most real scientists, fortunately, tend to be more honest than you.
Boy, oh boy. For somebody with such incredible conceit, you sure do get things wrong. Okay consider this:
If I say 2000 is the warmest year in 500 years, that says either a) I don't know anything about the temps before 1500, or b) the temps before 1500 may have been this high. In the case of global temperatures, the answer is b. Check out this graph of the estimated surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea over the last 3000 years, for example. Climatologists acknowledge that temperatures rose in medieval times, dropped around 1400, spiked up higher than now around 1500 (thus the quote from BBC), and then we entered what they call a "little ice age" in the 1700's. That's what we're coming out of now.
The fact is, historical evidence does not at all suggest that we are warming the planet with our activity.
In addition, your figure of a 20% human contribution of CO2 is entirely bogus! Each year, humans put about 5.5 Gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere. The surface ocean and the atmosphere exchange 90 Gt, vegetation and the atmosphere 60Gt, etc, etc. These numbers are all estimates, of course, and, unlike you, I will cite a scientific paper written by climatologists that reviews the current evidence of global warming.
Finally, your assertion that climate scientists are running for the hills or packing their bags for Mars is inaccurate. There is, for example, the Petition Project, an effort circulated by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, that has garnered over 17,000 signatures of qualified scientists. It states that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." A competing pro-warming petition, circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997, had secured a paltry 1,559 signatures. See this article for details.
You have been popping up on this thread, bullying people with your unsubstantiated assertions, sarcasm, and bogus arguements, but facts are facts, and they're definitely not on your side.
There are a number of glaring innacuracies in this article. It sounds academic, but seems to be more polemic in nature. With regard to the accuracy, take this as an example: You write
...current attitude...is defined by a two-page entry in the latest edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia...but fails to mention the best-known fact--that the church authorities burnt him alive at the stake
But in front of me I happen to have the current Catholic Encyclopedia (my roommate was a seminarian) and it says in the Bruno article:
In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (8 February), and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome (17 February).
The Church is in fact painfully honest about mistakes. It's a shame socialist organizations aren't so concerned about the misdeeds of Socialism.
Thanks for the honestly anti-Catholic rant on Slashdot. Do you have any nice remarks for Jews and Muslims as well?
You realize of course, that the Church has abided any number of zealous critics who have been announcing it's imminent destruction. Then another couple of hundred years pass and the critic has long turned to dust, but the Church remains, as eternal as ever.
Hmmm. The article says both that the planet has not been this warm since the 1500's, and that it is about a degree warmer than the 1500's. I wonder which is true? And if so, what caused the planet to be this warm in the 1500's? It certainly wasn't humans. It's a well-known fact that the planet has been warming in a zig-zag fashion from an ice age over the last 10,000 years. It's not at all obvious that our miniscule contributions to the atmosphere have affected this in any way.
Your second point is definitely not true. Many believed that the Sun was another star and that the Earth spun around the sun without being condemned in any way. From Brittanica:
Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
It was Bruno's theology that got him into trouble.
The cynicism of your comment is unwarranted, and, I think, not supported by historical evidence. It sounds more like regurgitated Marxism, which is not a substitute for original thought, or insightful analysis. And "gifting" is not a verb unless you've been a graduate student for too long.
Indeed, Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc. What puzzles me (and some good historians, too) is that he had recanted in Venice before being extradited to Rome.
Chomsky's work in linguistics, a field in which he is fairly knowledgable, has become mainstream.
Chomsky's idiotic rantings on economics, politics, and foreign policy are not sufficiently ignored, though. He's a looney. I like people with different ideas, but they have to have some occasional connection with reality, a phenomenon unknown in his ravings. Name one idea of his that is "visionary", rather than "refried Marxist horseshit".
It's not really true to assert that "power structures" will do anything to maintain their position of power. Sometimes they reach a level of maturity where their "power" is not their highest value. A case in point would be the great monarchies of Continental Europe in the first part of this century. Most reliquished their power voluntarily when they felt it was in the best interests of their countries.
Eventually lured back to Italy on a pretext, Bruno was imprisoned in 1592 by the Inquisition, tried as a heretic and burned alive on Feb. 17, 1600.
A small point, to be sure, but the part about the "pretext" isn't really true. In the 1580's Bruno had developed an elaborate theory of memory training (published in, most famously, his Clavis Magna or Great Key). In 1591 he was invited to Venice by a gentleman named Mocenigo, who was keenly interested in his methods of memory training. Angry after failing to obtain from Bruno the secret of his "natural magic", Mocenigo denounced him to the Inquisition. The Ventian authorites reluctantly extradited him.
Slashdot Mirror
Of the effect of the current savings technique LongRun also for the virtual Northbridge the responsible person development conductor Marc meat man, by the way a German, could convince me in the Transmeta lab.
Wish I knew German, if only to see how babelfish ended up with "Marc meat man."
And FUCK YOU TOO Mr. Moderator Pansy Faggot!
Pinhead, nobody asked you to come here either. But unlike you, anonymous shit for brains, I've been here for two years, log in, and defend my comments. Anybody who thinks Diallo was murdered for being black is probably too embarrassed by his stupidity to have a username. Four blacks on the jury had the opportunity to find the cops guilty of racist murder. They saw all of the evidence. You didn't. And they voted to acquit.
Yes, it was an upsetting tragedy. But the cops were unanimously acquitted by a jury of their peers - almost half of whom were minorities who would, presumably, be quite sensitive to the implications of roving white cops mindlessly killing an innocent black man. Mourn the death, but get off my ass.
It's a good thing you're not a NYC cop. You're exhibiting more pent-up anger and disproportionate reaction than the cops you're criticizing.
Hungarians often carry paprika in little pouches so they can sprinkle it one their food almost indiscriminately. No kidding.
Jerry Lewis?
All four burritos look nasty - filled with multi-colored vegetables. They look way too healthy. Next thing you know, you'd be eating salads.
Your argument is nothing more than cynical conspiracy theories, supported by nothing more than your assertions. Your views of the media and the "vested interests with way too much money" are almost cartoonish in their silliness. You are, in short, a crank.
The French Revolution is not in that time span. And England is not on the Continent. You should read (or think) more carefully.
It is worth pointing out, however, that the British monarchy gave up an entire empire in the first half of the century, most of it voluntarily. But I had in mind the Hapsburg empire, with the Emperor voluntarily acceding to his dethronement. You don't see Otto von Hapsburg (the current heir) scrapping for his throne, either. He is a very productive meber of the European Parliament from Belgium. The Hapsburgs see their duty as serving Europe in whatever capacity is needed. Two more examples of monarchs voluntarily giving up power for a perceived greater good of the country would be the Kings of Spain and Greece. Of course Juan Carlos still rules over Spain, but has no real executive power anymore.
PS - Ad hominem means, literally, at or to the man. I attacked his arguments and a word he used. A hypothetical ad hominem attack would have been more like "Tilde, you are a colossal dumbass, even dumber than crush!"
More amusing, though, is your claim that measuring the temperature of the lower atmosphere will tell us less about global warming than measuring at a few hundred stations on the ground. Are you aware that "global warming" refers to much, much, much more of the atmosphere than that which exists right outside those stations? In any event, the discrepancy between surface and satellite measurements occurs primarily over ocean, where surface measurement is least accurate. There is virtually no discrepancy between satellite and surface data in North America, where surface data is most accurate. Furthermore, the satellite data is calibrated carefully with baloon thermometers. A good concise NASA article explaining the accuracy of satellite measurements is found here.
The fact, you simply want to ignore excellent data when it does not bear out your foregone conclusion of imminent man-made catastrophe. Most real scientists, fortunately, tend to be more honest than you.
If I say 2000 is the warmest year in 500 years, that says either a) I don't know anything about the temps before 1500, or b) the temps before 1500 may have been this high. In the case of global temperatures, the answer is b. Check out this graph of the estimated surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea over the last 3000 years, for example. Climatologists acknowledge that temperatures rose in medieval times, dropped around 1400, spiked up higher than now around 1500 (thus the quote from BBC), and then we entered what they call a "little ice age" in the 1700's. That's what we're coming out of now.
The fact is, historical evidence does not at all suggest that we are warming the planet with our activity.
In addition, your figure of a 20% human contribution of CO2 is entirely bogus! Each year, humans put about 5.5 Gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere. The surface ocean and the atmosphere exchange 90 Gt, vegetation and the atmosphere 60Gt, etc, etc. These numbers are all estimates, of course, and, unlike you, I will cite a scientific paper written by climatologists that reviews the current evidence of global warming.
Finally, your assertion that climate scientists are running for the hills or packing their bags for Mars is inaccurate. There is, for example, the Petition Project, an effort circulated by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, that has garnered over 17,000 signatures of qualified scientists. It states that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." A competing pro-warming petition, circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997, had secured a paltry 1,559 signatures. See this article for details.
You have been popping up on this thread, bullying people with your unsubstantiated assertions, sarcasm, and bogus arguements, but facts are facts, and they're definitely not on your side.
Okay, then. Give a Chompsky quote that makes sense about something besdies linguistics, and we'll chomp on it. I'm game.
But in front of me I happen to have the current Catholic Encyclopedia (my roommate was a seminarian) and it says in the Bruno article:
In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (8 February), and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome (17 February).
The Church is in fact painfully honest about mistakes. It's a shame socialist organizations aren't so concerned about the misdeeds of Socialism.
You realize of course, that the Church has abided any number of zealous critics who have been announcing it's imminent destruction. Then another couple of hundred years pass and the critic has long turned to dust, but the Church remains, as eternal as ever.
Hmmm. The article says both that the planet has not been this warm since the 1500's, and that it is about a degree warmer than the 1500's. I wonder which is true? And if so, what caused the planet to be this warm in the 1500's? It certainly wasn't humans. It's a well-known fact that the planet has been warming in a zig-zag fashion from an ice age over the last 10,000 years. It's not at all obvious that our miniscule contributions to the atmosphere have affected this in any way.
Hey, you should try Online Brittanica. What a great site.
Sorry, but I didn't finish and didn't preview. Everything but the last sentence was a quotation from Brittancia.
Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
It was Bruno's theology that got him into trouble.
The cynicism of your comment is unwarranted, and, I think, not supported by historical evidence. It sounds more like regurgitated Marxism, which is not a substitute for original thought, or insightful analysis. And "gifting" is not a verb unless you've been a graduate student for too long.
Indeed, Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc. What puzzles me (and some good historians, too) is that he had recanted in Venice before being extradited to Rome.
Chomsky's idiotic rantings on economics, politics, and foreign policy are not sufficiently ignored, though. He's a looney. I like people with different ideas, but they have to have some occasional connection with reality, a phenomenon unknown in his ravings. Name one idea of his that is "visionary", rather than "refried Marxist horseshit".
Did he really? Did you know Newton invented the Cat Flap and the the little grooves around coins?
It's not really true to assert that "power structures" will do anything to maintain their position of power. Sometimes they reach a level of maturity where their "power" is not their highest value. A case in point would be the great monarchies of Continental Europe in the first part of this century. Most reliquished their power voluntarily when they felt it was in the best interests of their countries.
A small point, to be sure, but the part about the "pretext" isn't really true. In the 1580's Bruno had developed an elaborate theory of memory training (published in, most famously, his Clavis Magna or Great Key). In 1591 he was invited to Venice by a gentleman named Mocenigo, who was keenly interested in his methods of memory training. Angry after failing to obtain from Bruno the secret of his "natural magic", Mocenigo denounced him to the Inquisition. The Ventian authorites reluctantly extradited him.