All your other blue-eyed optimism aside, this is particularly funny:
and won't go thunk in the night when Bill Gates "upgrades" things to break your work
You know, it's really open source software that's known for making arbitrary upgrades that break backwards compatibility (and keeping version numbers below 1 so they have an excuse - hey, it's just beta!), while Windows goes to great pains to preserve backwards compatibility at all costs, even at the detriment of the system as a whole.
Well, first off, that article misrepresents the actual article it is referencing. The actual article seems to be mostly a few nitpicks, and the main claim that only 13 articles "explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.'"
Now, since I am not well versed in climate science methodology and jargon, I can't really tell what is an explicit or implicit endorsement. But I'm not sure a social anthropologist like Peiser is, either. And I'm not sure why he is so insistent on only counting "explicit" endorsements. Why would papers in a field keep explicitly endorsing positions which are largely assumed to be well-known? Every paper on general relativity does not include a line saying, "by the way, general relativity is actually true!".
No, everybody knows that the discussion is politicized.
The claim of the original article is that the science is politicized.
The two are very, very different claims, and the latter is absolutely not true, and it only serves to further the aims of those who wish to obscure the truth.
All you got is what you've been told to believe - on faith.
No, I have an entire field of science backing me up.
You have a bunch of people pushing an agenda, and an ideology that for some reason is making them disregard science in favor of dogma.
But no, obviously you're far smarter than thousands of people who have dedicated their entire careers to finding out the truth. You can see right through them, they're all liars.
Then why it is only pro global warming science is getting funding?
Because it is actually global warming science, without any "pro", that is getting funding, and because people are doing good science and finding that global warming is true? Maybe?
Do you honestly think an entire field of science is being told what they should produce, and going along with it? That's a very, very serious accusation. Do you have proof for that?
The OP had a fair point: in science, there rarely is a complete consensus on any given problem. The issue of global warming has been so extremely politicized that there's little room left for dissent against the popular points.
There is a complete consensus on, and very little room left for dissent against the popular points of gravity, too. This is not because gravity is politicized.
But we can make simulations. We can then match those simulation against past recorded data to see how well they hold up. And then we can extrapolate into the future.
Do you know what everyone who has tried this says?
Are you then saying that all climate scientists are bad scientists? Because they are unanimous in declaring global warming to be real and man-made. That's the "consensus".
It would be quite an extraordinary claim. Do you have proof to back up the accusation?
Big money comes from the industry. The industry largely wants global warming suppressed. Who exactly are these big spenders who benefit from pushing an agenda of global warming, again?
PHP 5, maybe. Which is not all that widespread yet. And it still has the old, horrible interfaces sitting right there, and all tutorials and all the code people copy-paste use them.
It wasn't designed right from the start, and it will take a very, very long time to undo the damage.
It's easy enough to put a "Allowed HTML:" list somewhere. Lots of sites do that, and I don't think anybody has problems with that.
And you don't really get any of the benefits you mention: BBcode maps nearly 1:1 to a subset of HTML. You can largely just replace BBcode tags with HTML ones in your code, and you get the same thing, only more friendly to people who are more likely to be familiar with HTML.
You don't output user-submitted HTML at all. You first parse HTML, and then you output your own HTML. You use the exact same kind of engine you would for BBcode. Any vulnerabilities the HTML version would have (and I don't deny it could have them), the BBcode version would be just as likely to have (and this happens).
Slashdot Mirror
That's censorship, not science.
What is? The truth?
Why are you going on about printers?
All your other blue-eyed optimism aside, this is particularly funny:
and won't go thunk in the night when Bill Gates "upgrades" things to break your work
You know, it's really open source software that's known for making arbitrary upgrades that break backwards compatibility (and keeping version numbers below 1 so they have an excuse - hey, it's just beta!), while Windows goes to great pains to preserve backwards compatibility at all costs, even at the detriment of the system as a whole.
Well, first off, that article misrepresents the actual article it is referencing. The actual article seems to be mostly a few nitpicks, and the main claim that only 13 articles "explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.'"
Now, since I am not well versed in climate science methodology and jargon, I can't really tell what is an explicit or implicit endorsement. But I'm not sure a social anthropologist like Peiser is, either. And I'm not sure why he is so insistent on only counting "explicit" endorsements. Why would papers in a field keep explicitly endorsing positions which are largely assumed to be well-known? Every paper on general relativity does not include a line saying, "by the way, general relativity is actually true!".
No, everybody knows that the discussion is politicized.
The claim of the original article is that the science is politicized.
The two are very, very different claims, and the latter is absolutely not true, and it only serves to further the aims of those who wish to obscure the truth.
Because emission restrictions are costly, and the industry would largely be forced to foot the bill?
All you got is what you've been told to believe - on faith.
No, I have an entire field of science backing me up.
You have a bunch of people pushing an agenda, and an ideology that for some reason is making them disregard science in favor of dogma.
But no, obviously you're far smarter than thousands of people who have dedicated their entire careers to finding out the truth. You can see right through them, they're all liars.
Then why it is only pro global warming science is getting funding?
Because it is actually global warming science, without any "pro", that is getting funding, and because people are doing good science and finding that global warming is true? Maybe?
Do you honestly think an entire field of science is being told what they should produce, and going along with it? That's a very, very serious accusation. Do you have proof for that?
Lots of people do, all the time. Sorry, that argument holds no water.
The OP had a fair point: in science, there rarely is a complete consensus on any given problem. The issue of global warming has been so extremely politicized that there's little room left for dissent against the popular points.
There is a complete consensus on, and very little room left for dissent against the popular points of gravity, too. This is not because gravity is politicized.
We can not test it in reality, now.
But we can make simulations. We can then match those simulation against past recorded data to see how well they hold up. And then we can extrapolate into the future.
Do you know what everyone who has tried this says?
They say, "Oh shit."
And what do YOU> think when skepticism is shown towards gravity?
Why do I think it's nowhere near "There's a scientific throught".
Not all scientists are good scientists
Are you then saying that all climate scientists are bad scientists? Because they are unanimous in declaring global warming to be real and man-made. That's the "consensus".
It would be quite an extraordinary claim. Do you have proof to back up the accusation?
Who exactly do you think it is that is funding this global conspiracy of global warming supporters, then? The industry sure isn't.
Big money comes from the industry. The industry largely wants global warming suppressed. Who exactly are these big spenders who benefit from pushing an agenda of global warming, again?
Science today is the people with money deciding which lines of research are actually explored
The "people with money" are exactly the ones who would prefer global warming to be false.
EVEN SO, the entire field of climate science agrees that it is real and man-made.
No, all the serious scientific organizations.
/ 5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= &author1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&store d_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31 /2004
Really.
All of them.
Seriously, for real.
Yes.
All of them.
No, really.
It's true.
Did the message get through, yet? Look, here's a scientific study of the fact that all climate scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306
Believe it yet?
It's true.
PHP 5, maybe. Which is not all that widespread yet. And it still has the old, horrible interfaces sitting right there, and all tutorials and all the code people copy-paste use them.
It wasn't designed right from the start, and it will take a very, very long time to undo the damage.
By not being literal-minded nerds, and by being able to understand meaning from context, probably.
Wait, uh, yes.
Uh, no.
It's easy enough to put a "Allowed HTML:" list somewhere. Lots of sites do that, and I don't think anybody has problems with that.
And you don't really get any of the benefits you mention: BBcode maps nearly 1:1 to a subset of HTML. You can largely just replace BBcode tags with HTML ones in your code, and you get the same thing, only more friendly to people who are more likely to be familiar with HTML.
You don't output user-submitted HTML at all. You first parse HTML, and then you output your own HTML. You use the exact same kind of engine you would for BBcode. Any vulnerabilities the HTML version would have (and I don't deny it could have them), the BBcode version would be just as likely to have (and this happens).
You missed the point - why parse [b] into , when you could parse into , and discard as invalid?
Unfortunately, despite the name, you cannot actually count atoms with an atomic clock.
Try again.
Welcome to input sanitation, Slashdot style!