Which is rather like saying "blood pressure exists and changes every 24 hours". No matter how many times you say that, it won't make a blood pressure of 140 over 90 healthy.
I don't imagine you care one iota, or will even listen, but oddly enough, climatologists can determine what is a normal statistical fluctuation and what points stand out against the normal background, and can identify trends.
No you don't remember that. There were a handful of people making that claim, and it was never generally accepted. This is just a tired meme that people like you invoke.
The joke is on you. All that is needed to understand AGW is to understand the properties of green house gases, in particular CO2, and to accept that thermodynamics is a real property of the universe. Increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, even by very small percentages, and you greatly increase the atmosphere's ability to capture and trap energy. This isn't rocket science, it isn't mythology, it is a simple property of CO2, that has been known for over a century.
Get over it. Dumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year will trap more energy. Period. Full stop. Unless you can provide some magic heat sink that dumps that energy into space or somewhere else, all you're doing is denying simple physical laws, and for what? Why are you so needing of denying of reality?
So tell me, how was this comment overrated? How is it that so many science deniers get mod points, and why is it that they choose to use it to punish those that accept the science? Do you think you win debates by downmodding people?
I agree with it to a certain extent. I think a good manager can probably manage most kinds of organizations, without any specialization. By the same token, it isn't always the case that someone that works up through a specific industry will be able to manage a company within that industry. There's no hard fast rule. As much as anything what counts as far as a good leader goes isn't specific expertise in the areas of business activity he may be put in charge of, but rather he quickly recognizes the people with the skills in the organization who can be tapped to make informed decisions.
But there's no hard fast rule. I do think some people are just innately good managers and whether it's widgets, iPhone apps or human resources companies, they can probably do a damned good job. By the same token, there are those kinds of managers who overestimate their own abilities, ignore the subordinates and often times seem largely in it for themselves. There are also people who have a lot of experience in a company, but poor people skills or a poor grasp of the bigger picture who, if promoted into management, can make the absolute worst kinds of managers.
Christ almighty Slashdot. Would you start revoking the mod points of these bloody people. What will I be permitted to say on this place without getting my karma bashed to pieces? Just mindlessly agree "AGW is a lie and Trump is the bestest ever!"
For pseudoscientific advocates all that counts is a response is made. The response doesn't have to be true, it doesn't even have to make sense. But what is necessary is that some sort of criticism, no matter how moronic, false or absurd, exists, so that all the other advocates of pseudoscience can declare "You see, someone made a response, so your theory is wrong!!!!"
Answers In Genesis has done this for years in attacking biology. Some of the objections, like the bizarre moon dust claims, are so incredibly idiotic that it's hard to imagine anyone taking them seriously, and one suspects that the formulators of such claims don't take them seriously. But gullible people who want to hear how their ideology or religion is totally true will lap it up, because it gives them a quick retort. In reality such claims are made to make the advocate of pseudoscience feel better, because I suspect most of them, deep down, know what they believe and what they're saying is utter nonsense.
Your cherry picking an entire study based on the word "adjusted". In other words, you're partaking of the favorite aspect of pseudoscience, out of context quoting, because you either cannot understand the research, or don't want to.
In fact, how many actual scientific theories (as defined as actually having a methodological approach, founded on a theory, built out of hypotheses and attempting to explain actual evidence) been overthrown? Newtonian mechanics never was, and is still used in the context of being a simplified set of formulas for velocities where relativistic calculations are not necessary. Non Big Bang theories of the universe were thrown out, in particular the steady state theory, but even the steady state theory left its mark on later cosmology via the Cosmological Constant. Some pre-plate tectonic theories of geology were supplanted. The ether certainly had its advocates, but didn't survive the 19th century.
Other than that, all you're really doing is trying to fling out long debunked and never really accepted nonsense like phrenology, acting as if science is somehow this vast array of utterly unreliable nonsense. In essence, you're advocating a position that there is no such thing as reliable knowledge, a sort of epistemological nihilism, and for what? So you don't have to accept that CO2 absorbs UV radiation and emits ER, some of which gets trapped in the lower atmosphere, with the corollary that the more energy you trap in the lower atmosphere, the more heat is going to end up there? And for what, so you don't have to admit that burning fossil fuels causes long term changes to climate?
Does the science so frighten you that you basically have to reject the entire notion of methodological naturalism? And if it's so unreliable, then how is it that you can even use the products of science? I mean, is there any science you would accept, or is this just a magical universe where anything that inconveniences you are challenges your ideological biases is automatically rejected because God/the Invisible Hand of the Market/whatever-you-believe could never allow such physical laws to exist?
At the end of the day, it's hard to see how you're not either fundamentally a fool, and likely a coward as well, willing to accept any story that doesn't challenge your beliefs.
Climatologists have no reason to lie at all. They will still be involved in that research whether it's global warming, global cooling, or nothing at all.
But you tell me, where does all the extra energy absorbed and re-eimitted as IR by CO2 go? If you think the climatologists are lying, does that also lead you to believe that physicists who have known CO2's properties as far as absorbing certain wavelengths of CO2 for over a century are also lying? Just how many people will you stack into your conspiracy to make the theory go away?
So it's your view that there is no such thing as an expert, that all claims are equal, and that a person who has studied climatology their entire career has no more knowledge than a burger flipper?
It's not an ad hominem attack to call a pseudoskeptic out. The poster made no indication of understanding how data is analyzed, but basically claimed either incompetence or conspiracy by NOAA scientists.
I'll ask everyone who rejects AGW, where in the hell is all that energy being absorbed by CO2 going? If there's some unknown heat sink dumping the solar radiation being absorbed by CO2 back into space, what exactly is it? After all, thermodynamics still reigns supreme last time I heard, so there's no perpetual magic refrigeration unit in the sky getting rid of excess energy be capture due to higher CO2 concentrations, so where is it?
The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat.
It's bad news when you have to control for various factors in order to obtain an interesting result. It's also very arbitrary because the researcher can pick and choose which factors to account for and how to do so, in order to obtain the desired result.
These kinds of abuses lead to all sorts of nonsense conclusions like claiming vaccines cause autism. If the warming doesn't show up until you adjust for certain factors, you're doctoring the data.
So, I'd really like to know whether this is before or after the adjustments. The adjustments to the data create the mostly fictional warming.
Just how much longer are you going to keep up this pseudo skepticism? Basically you're calling scientists liars, or at best, morons. So let's here your interpretation, and let's hear who you've submitted it to, and how it has been received.
I'm in agreement. If Netflix wants to throw out DRM-laden video, well, I'm only paying like $12 a month, so I'm willing to concede them the point. I'm not buying the videos, as you say, so if distribution means DRM-capable infrastructure, then so be it.
If someone is looking for a secure alternative to Skype, why would you recommend an alternative that is, at best, no more secure, and more than likely FAR LESS secure? I understand that the compromise is worth it to you, because other people you know want to use it to converse with you, but to recommend this as a secure alternative doesn't exactly strike me as being very helpful at all.
I gather you didn't even read my post. I'm not complaining about opposing view points, I'm complaining about Trump supporters who attack opposing view points by using mod points to silence criticism.
Nobody is terrified of him. He's crashing and burning. The best case scenario right now is that he loses as bad as Romney, but Nate Silver is now raising the possibility of Trump's defeat turning into a rout. The idea that this is the product of some vast conspiracy, when Clinton is set to pick up a number of RED states is just absurd, the kind of fantastical think that partisans too incapable of accepting reality raise.
It will be Hillary Clinton who takes the oath of office in January, by which time Donald Trump will likely be flogging his inane and insane conspiracy theories to the remaining faithful for big bucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is rather like saying "blood pressure exists and changes every 24 hours". No matter how many times you say that, it won't make a blood pressure of 140 over 90 healthy.
I don't imagine you care one iota, or will even listen, but oddly enough, climatologists can determine what is a normal statistical fluctuation and what points stand out against the normal background, and can identify trends.
And further, if your claim that there's a maximum amount of CO2 beyond which energy trapping stops, then why does lead melt on the surface of Venus?
Care to provide an actual citation to this claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated?
No you don't remember that. There were a handful of people making that claim, and it was never generally accepted. This is just a tired meme that people like you invoke.
The joke is on you. All that is needed to understand AGW is to understand the properties of green house gases, in particular CO2, and to accept that thermodynamics is a real property of the universe. Increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, even by very small percentages, and you greatly increase the atmosphere's ability to capture and trap energy. This isn't rocket science, it isn't mythology, it is a simple property of CO2, that has been known for over a century.
Get over it. Dumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year will trap more energy. Period. Full stop. Unless you can provide some magic heat sink that dumps that energy into space or somewhere else, all you're doing is denying simple physical laws, and for what? Why are you so needing of denying of reality?
So tell me, how was this comment overrated? How is it that so many science deniers get mod points, and why is it that they choose to use it to punish those that accept the science? Do you think you win debates by downmodding people?
Fuck this place sucks so fucking bad.
I agree with it to a certain extent. I think a good manager can probably manage most kinds of organizations, without any specialization. By the same token, it isn't always the case that someone that works up through a specific industry will be able to manage a company within that industry. There's no hard fast rule. As much as anything what counts as far as a good leader goes isn't specific expertise in the areas of business activity he may be put in charge of, but rather he quickly recognizes the people with the skills in the organization who can be tapped to make informed decisions.
But there's no hard fast rule. I do think some people are just innately good managers and whether it's widgets, iPhone apps or human resources companies, they can probably do a damned good job. By the same token, there are those kinds of managers who overestimate their own abilities, ignore the subordinates and often times seem largely in it for themselves. There are also people who have a lot of experience in a company, but poor people skills or a poor grasp of the bigger picture who, if promoted into management, can make the absolute worst kinds of managers.
Christ almighty Slashdot. Would you start revoking the mod points of these bloody people. What will I be permitted to say on this place without getting my karma bashed to pieces? Just mindlessly agree "AGW is a lie and Trump is the bestest ever!"
For pseudoscientific advocates all that counts is a response is made. The response doesn't have to be true, it doesn't even have to make sense. But what is necessary is that some sort of criticism, no matter how moronic, false or absurd, exists, so that all the other advocates of pseudoscience can declare "You see, someone made a response, so your theory is wrong!!!!"
Answers In Genesis has done this for years in attacking biology. Some of the objections, like the bizarre moon dust claims, are so incredibly idiotic that it's hard to imagine anyone taking them seriously, and one suspects that the formulators of such claims don't take them seriously. But gullible people who want to hear how their ideology or religion is totally true will lap it up, because it gives them a quick retort. In reality such claims are made to make the advocate of pseudoscience feel better, because I suspect most of them, deep down, know what they believe and what they're saying is utter nonsense.
Climate isn't weather. If you don't even know that much, then how can you possibly have ability to assess the theory in question?
Your cherry picking an entire study based on the word "adjusted". In other words, you're partaking of the favorite aspect of pseudoscience, out of context quoting, because you either cannot understand the research, or don't want to.
When was phrenology ever a science?
In fact, how many actual scientific theories (as defined as actually having a methodological approach, founded on a theory, built out of hypotheses and attempting to explain actual evidence) been overthrown? Newtonian mechanics never was, and is still used in the context of being a simplified set of formulas for velocities where relativistic calculations are not necessary. Non Big Bang theories of the universe were thrown out, in particular the steady state theory, but even the steady state theory left its mark on later cosmology via the Cosmological Constant. Some pre-plate tectonic theories of geology were supplanted. The ether certainly had its advocates, but didn't survive the 19th century.
Other than that, all you're really doing is trying to fling out long debunked and never really accepted nonsense like phrenology, acting as if science is somehow this vast array of utterly unreliable nonsense. In essence, you're advocating a position that there is no such thing as reliable knowledge, a sort of epistemological nihilism, and for what? So you don't have to accept that CO2 absorbs UV radiation and emits ER, some of which gets trapped in the lower atmosphere, with the corollary that the more energy you trap in the lower atmosphere, the more heat is going to end up there? And for what, so you don't have to admit that burning fossil fuels causes long term changes to climate?
Does the science so frighten you that you basically have to reject the entire notion of methodological naturalism? And if it's so unreliable, then how is it that you can even use the products of science? I mean, is there any science you would accept, or is this just a magical universe where anything that inconveniences you are challenges your ideological biases is automatically rejected because God/the Invisible Hand of the Market/whatever-you-believe could never allow such physical laws to exist?
At the end of the day, it's hard to see how you're not either fundamentally a fool, and likely a coward as well, willing to accept any story that doesn't challenge your beliefs.
Climatologists have no reason to lie at all. They will still be involved in that research whether it's global warming, global cooling, or nothing at all.
But you tell me, where does all the extra energy absorbed and re-eimitted as IR by CO2 go? If you think the climatologists are lying, does that also lead you to believe that physicists who have known CO2's properties as far as absorbing certain wavelengths of CO2 for over a century are also lying? Just how many people will you stack into your conspiracy to make the theory go away?
So it's your view that there is no such thing as an expert, that all claims are equal, and that a person who has studied climatology their entire career has no more knowledge than a burger flipper?
I didn't post that.
It's not an ad hominem attack to call a pseudoskeptic out. The poster made no indication of understanding how data is analyzed, but basically claimed either incompetence or conspiracy by NOAA scientists.
I'll ask everyone who rejects AGW, where in the hell is all that energy being absorbed by CO2 going? If there's some unknown heat sink dumping the solar radiation being absorbed by CO2 back into space, what exactly is it? After all, thermodynamics still reigns supreme last time I heard, so there's no perpetual magic refrigeration unit in the sky getting rid of excess energy be capture due to higher CO2 concentrations, so where is it?
You're wrong because you're constructing statement, and seem to have no interest in the science at all.
Was this before or after adjusting the data?
The procedure is outlined here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat.
It's bad news when you have to control for various factors in order to obtain an interesting result. It's also very arbitrary because the researcher can pick and choose which factors to account for and how to do so, in order to obtain the desired result.
These kinds of abuses lead to all sorts of nonsense conclusions like claiming vaccines cause autism. If the warming doesn't show up until you adjust for certain factors, you're doctoring the data.
So, I'd really like to know whether this is before or after the adjustments. The adjustments to the data create the mostly fictional warming.
Just how much longer are you going to keep up this pseudo skepticism? Basically you're calling scientists liars, or at best, morons. So let's here your interpretation, and let's hear who you've submitted it to, and how it has been received.
Coding in Javascript, PHP and VB6.
I'm in agreement. If Netflix wants to throw out DRM-laden video, well, I'm only paying like $12 a month, so I'm willing to concede them the point. I'm not buying the videos, as you say, so if distribution means DRM-capable infrastructure, then so be it.
Are you saying that all libraries for browsers is being loaded statically at startup?
If someone is looking for a secure alternative to Skype, why would you recommend an alternative that is, at best, no more secure, and more than likely FAR LESS secure? I understand that the compromise is worth it to you, because other people you know want to use it to converse with you, but to recommend this as a secure alternative doesn't exactly strike me as being very helpful at all.
No I'm upset because Trump and Sanders supporters use the moderation system on Slashdot to attack anyone who doesn't agree with them.
I gather you didn't even read my post. I'm not complaining about opposing view points, I'm complaining about Trump supporters who attack opposing view points by using mod points to silence criticism.
Nobody is terrified of him. He's crashing and burning. The best case scenario right now is that he loses as bad as Romney, but Nate Silver is now raising the possibility of Trump's defeat turning into a rout. The idea that this is the product of some vast conspiracy, when Clinton is set to pick up a number of RED states is just absurd, the kind of fantastical think that partisans too incapable of accepting reality raise.
It will be Hillary Clinton who takes the oath of office in January, by which time Donald Trump will likely be flogging his inane and insane conspiracy theories to the remaining faithful for big bucks.