"The people who are trying to sow FUD against AGW know that it doesn't matter what was actually in those emails."
a) They are online. It's not hard to check.
b) Do you seriously think that "it doesn't matter" what is actually in the emails (and data)? If they had been all about ordering takeout and yesterday's game, would anyone have cared? The answer is obvious.
"Finally, here is a question for all the deniers out there. If the engineering feat required today was to actually warm up the planet, how would we do it? I think that the best answer would be to do what were are already doing today."
Depends on the feedback mechanisms between CO2 and the really potent greenhouse gasses. Which it is now very clear that the researchers in question haven't got a very good handle on.
Finally, about the term "denier" - this little "trick" (sorry) to tie a broad range of "unacceptable" opinions to holocaust denial, etc. is a departure from good science, which is not supposed to be conducted through invective and ostracism against differing viewpoints, etc.
That the AGW club have taken the right to depart from this, in order to behave as assholes when silencing non-conformist voices places an immense burden on them to follow the most stringent scientific protocol imaginable.
I think it's pretty clear by now that they fail to live up even to that standard.
This is assuming that the other nice little lines in the graph are of superior quality, of couse. (I.e. the dismissal of urban heat islands as a factor, etc.)
Given the stringency and academic openness on display from the climate research community, that is far from certain.
"What are you implying? The ENTIRE UN is in on the "conspiracy" to give more funding to a select group of scientists, so that they can take more trips to Tahiti?"
There is nothing "secret" about it - the group is known as the IPCC and will of course like most organizations defend itself to the death.
They aren't discussing the merits of papers. They are trying to get people (journal editors) fired, based on their perceived loyalty (or lack thereof) to 'the cause'.
Of course, that is when they aren't deleting data in order to prevent if from falling into the wrong hands, or conspiring to avoid the law in order to keep their data under wraps. Data that has now sadly been lost forever in a mysterious accidental deletion.
Or celebrating the deaths of "sceptics" (clearly these people are a bunch of dispassionate scientists).
And so on.
If this is Science as Usual (TM), then Science needs serious reform.
...but the data deletion conspiracies, the conspiring to disrupt the peer review process in various clever ways, the knowing avoidance of Freedom of Information Act Requests, the slurs against "sceptics", including celebrating their deaths, and so on.
And that's just from the emails I have read so far.
"Doubting" indeed. And these assholes have had the nerve to indignantly drape themselves in the flag of science.
They go as far as telling others to delete information that (I reckon) could be incriminating.
" > Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? > Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. > > Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t > have his new email address. > > We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. > > I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature > paper!!"
CA is the principal "climate sceptic" website.
Of course, much effort is also dedicated to avoiding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
"PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !"
And so on.
Of course, they also find time to gloat of the death of "sceptics", etc. etc. All classy stuff.
He suggested solving the problem by abolishing marriage. I commented. Then you jump onto the stage, frothy mouth and all, and start gibbering about interracial marriage. What a spectacle! (Well, not really, but...)
Allegory wars! Argument by allegory - powerful, and usually wrong (because the devil is always in the details, no?).
More specifically, your example only works because we have hammered out a consensus (in the US) on the topics of freedom of conscience and religion, and the role of the state in those areas.
That doesn't mean that the principles that we hold dear with regards to those areas can then be freely extrapolated to any area (such as marriage).
In your example, a person is singled out because of a trait, and is then systematically treated differently. This is not so for gays, who are treated the same as everyone else. (There is no prohibition for gays to marry, after all - then you might have a point).
"I'd imagine you're aware of the usual response to that, but I think it's important enough that it bears repeating.
Whether or not being gay is a preference/choice or biologically determined is is irrelevant to the arguments in favor of gay marriage."
I don't really see any contradiction between something being a preference/choice or biologically determined (I consider all preferences and choices biologically determined).
"Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults."
That is of course a perfectly respectable libertarian standpoint, but most people are not libertarians. On the contrary, they have no problems with the government setting up institutions to promote what they consider pro-social virtues and behavior. Such as marriage.
"If that's the case, it's odd that so many of the legal and financial rights/privileges granted by marriage do not directly relate to child reading and, indeed, apply regardless of whether or not the married couple has children, ever plans to have children, or even can have children. For example, my mom is now past child-bearing age. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to get (re)married?"
Child rearing is one of the aspects behind people's support for marriage, but far from the only one. Marriage plays many other important roles in regulating the interaction of the sexes.
"PS - As a side note, part of a well-functioning government's role is to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority [wikipedia.org]. So while you're right, a minority population can't count on the state's protection, it's not unreasonable to expect such protection in the (theoretical) 'ideal' state."
Of course, one can count having ones preferences catered to an essential right, but I consider that attitude more than a little narcissistic.
Of course, any lawlessness could be justified by that argument. Still, lawlessness and liberalism are so closely intertwined that this should not really come as a surprise.
(As a side note, claims of being democratic are problematic if a substantial portion of the population are enslaved...)
(As a second side note, having your preferences catered to in all social institutions is not usually considered a "human right")
...Google is not arguing it's case to the voters. It is arguing for the benefit of a court, as if their recruitment issues could possibly have any bearing on the constitutionality of Prop 8.
Gays of course have the right to marry. The opposite sex.
Of course, that does not match their personal preference, but then again having your preferences catered to by the state isn't something you can count on when you are a distinct minority.
Gee, I wonder why people care about sex? It's not as if it's important or anything.
Hint: People like normal sexuality (their sexuality), and see little reason to celebrate what is a distinct minority preference. And they certainly don't want their kids to turn gay. People want to have grandkids. There you have another strong preference.
Finally, there is that whole "democracy" thing, I.e. not having the law written by judicial fiat. That principle alone is ten times as important as gay "marriage".
I dunno, but nor Microsoft nor Google is likely to have the kind of marketshare in the email space to justify antitrust action. Microsoft is well above antitrust levels with regards to browsers and operating systems, however.
Swedish state unions can go on a strike. The nurses have done so several times. The problem is that the employer is run via a budget, and does not really have "clients" in any real sense.
Hence, local government benefits economically from a union calling a strike. Meanwhile, public support tends to drop off pretty quickly when essential services are disrupted. As long as local government just sits pretty letting their budget go into the black, they usually end up the winner in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
"The people who are trying to sow FUD against AGW know that it doesn't matter what was actually in those emails."
a) They are online. It's not hard to check.
b) Do you seriously think that "it doesn't matter" what is actually in the emails (and data)? If they had been all about ordering takeout and yesterday's game, would anyone have cared? The answer is obvious.
"Hire more people to fulfill FOI request if that's what it takes."
It's pretty clear they spent more time dodging FOI requests compared to the time it would have taken to comply with them.
"Finally, here is a question for all the deniers out there. If the engineering feat required today was to actually warm up the planet, how would we do it? I think that the best answer would be to do what were are already doing today."
Depends on the feedback mechanisms between CO2 and the really potent greenhouse gasses. Which it is now very clear that the researchers in question haven't got a very good handle on.
Finally, about the term "denier" - this little "trick" (sorry) to tie a broad range of "unacceptable" opinions to holocaust denial, etc. is a departure from good science, which is not supposed to be conducted through invective and ostracism against differing viewpoints, etc.
That the AGW club have taken the right to depart from this, in order to behave as assholes when silencing non-conformist voices places an immense burden on them to follow the most stringent scientific protocol imaginable.
I think it's pretty clear by now that they fail to live up even to that standard.
This is assuming that the other nice little lines in the graph are of superior quality, of couse. (I.e. the dismissal of urban heat islands as a factor, etc.)
Given the stringency and academic openness on display from the climate research community, that is far from certain.
"What are you implying? The ENTIRE UN is in on the "conspiracy" to give more funding to a select group of scientists, so that they can take more trips to Tahiti?"
There is nothing "secret" about it - the group is known as the IPCC and will of course like most organizations defend itself to the death.
They aren't discussing the merits of papers. They are trying to get people (journal editors) fired, based on their perceived loyalty (or lack thereof) to 'the cause'.
Of course, that is when they aren't deleting data in order to prevent if from falling into the wrong hands, or conspiring to avoid the law in order to keep their data under wraps. Data that has now sadly been lost forever in a mysterious accidental deletion.
Or celebrating the deaths of "sceptics" (clearly these people are a bunch of dispassionate scientists).
And so on.
If this is Science as Usual (TM), then Science needs serious reform.
...but the data deletion conspiracies, the conspiring to disrupt the peer review process in various clever ways, the knowing avoidance of Freedom of Information Act Requests, the slurs against "sceptics", including celebrating their deaths, and so on.
And that's just from the emails I have read so far.
"Doubting" indeed. And these assholes have had the nerve to indignantly drape themselves in the flag of science.
They go as far as telling others to delete information that (I reckon) could be incriminating.
"
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!"
CA is the principal "climate sceptic" website.
Of course, much effort is also dedicated to avoiding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
"PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !"
And so on.
Of course, they also find time to gloat of the death of "sceptics", etc. etc. All classy stuff.
"Science" indeed.
Item: Anyone who uses the word "vibrant" with a straight face is highly likely to be an idiot.
He suggested solving the problem by abolishing marriage. I commented. Then you jump onto the stage, frothy mouth and all, and start gibbering about interracial marriage. What a spectacle! (Well, not really, but...)
Allegory wars! Argument by allegory - powerful, and usually wrong (because the devil is always in the details, no?).
More specifically, your example only works because we have hammered out a consensus (in the US) on the topics of freedom of conscience and religion, and the role of the state in those areas.
That doesn't mean that the principles that we hold dear with regards to those areas can then be freely extrapolated to any area (such as marriage).
In your example, a person is singled out because of a trait, and is then systematically treated differently. This is not so for gays, who are treated the same as everyone else. (There is no prohibition for gays to marry, after all - then you might have a point).
"I'd imagine you're aware of the usual response to that, but I think it's important enough that it bears repeating.
Whether or not being gay is a preference/choice or biologically determined is is irrelevant to the arguments in favor of gay marriage."
I don't really see any contradiction between something being a preference/choice or biologically determined (I consider all preferences and choices biologically determined).
"Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults."
That is of course a perfectly respectable libertarian standpoint, but most people are not libertarians. On the contrary, they have no problems with the government setting up institutions to promote what they consider pro-social virtues and behavior. Such as marriage.
"If that's the case, it's odd that so many of the legal and financial rights/privileges granted by marriage do not directly relate to child reading and, indeed, apply regardless of whether or not the married couple has children, ever plans to have children, or even can have children. For example, my mom is now past child-bearing age. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to get (re)married?"
Child rearing is one of the aspects behind people's support for marriage, but far from the only one. Marriage plays many other important roles in regulating the interaction of the sexes.
"PS - As a side note, part of a well-functioning government's role is to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority [wikipedia.org]. So while you're right, a minority population can't count on the state's protection, it's not unreasonable to expect such protection in the (theoretical) 'ideal' state."
Of course, one can count having ones preferences catered to an essential right, but I consider that attitude more than a little narcissistic.
"Which is good, since nobody is asking them to."
Yes, they are - they are asked to include behavior of which they disapprove in what they consider a sacred and important institution.
"And nobody is going to make their kids turn gay either. It's impossible to "convince" somebody to become gay, you either are or you aren't"
It is certainly possible to have people live out their gayness to a greater or a lesser extent. (See: American history before 1970).
Of course, any lawlessness could be justified by that argument. Still, lawlessness and liberalism are so closely intertwined that this should not really come as a surprise.
(As a side note, claims of being democratic are problematic if a substantial portion of the population are enslaved...)
(As a second side note, having your preferences catered to in all social institutions is not usually considered a "human right")
...Google is not arguing it's case to the voters. It is arguing for the benefit of a court, as if their recruitment issues could possibly have any bearing on the constitutionality of Prop 8.
See, Gay Marriage doesn't threaten marriage, it just mandates its elimination. What's all the fuss about?
Gays of course have the right to marry. The opposite sex.
Of course, that does not match their personal preference, but then again having your preferences catered to by the state isn't something you can count on when you are a distinct minority.
Gee, I wonder why people care about sex? It's not as if it's important or anything.
Hint: People like normal sexuality (their sexuality), and see little reason to celebrate what is a distinct minority preference. And they certainly don't want their kids to turn gay. People want to have grandkids. There you have another strong preference.
Finally, there is that whole "democracy" thing, I.e. not having the law written by judicial fiat. That principle alone is ten times as important as gay "marriage".
I dunno, but nor Microsoft nor Google is likely to have the kind of marketshare in the email space to justify antitrust action. Microsoft is well above antitrust levels with regards to browsers and operating systems, however.
Swedish state unions can go on a strike. The nurses have done so several times. The problem is that the employer is run via a budget, and does not really have "clients" in any real sense.
Hence, local government benefits economically from a union calling a strike. Meanwhile, public support tends to drop off pretty quickly when essential services are disrupted. As long as local government just sits pretty letting their budget go into the black, they usually end up the winner in the end.
Hey, get used to it. The Chicago way is going national baby!
Who forced the big three to take on such huge responsibilities? Why, the UAW!
Who introduced the myriad of "work rules" that make efficient auto production more difficult? Why, the UAW!
Of course, the management of GM et al. has also been abysmal, but that just makes for an even better combo. Synergy!
...says the AC...
No, they're Democrats.