America is immensely less free, with much less privacy, than when I was 20, less than 30 years ago. It's amazing how much freedom we've lost and people don't even seem to notice because they are told we are so much better than other places.
I thought a theory remained a theory as long as it fit the data.
If you found data that doesn't fit the theory, then the theory is adjusted or invalidated.
Re: the "theory" of gravity, the "theory" of evolution, etc. They fit the known data but data could come along tomorrow (Jupiter could take a right turn and head out of the solar system and we'd have to adjust the theory). It's unlikely that a theory will be completely invalidated. They are usually pretty strong and used to be called "laws".
It's impossible to say which version is true. I know facts get muddy over a couple decades. But sure- I'll be happy to cede that point. I think the tone of the recent emails more than makes up for it in terms of bias.
There is nothing so urgent about global warming that means we MUST ACT NOW. We could instead make the models and data public and give it another 10 years study and come to a much more reasoned conclusion. It's quite possible that technological innovations in the next 10 years will make the point moot. Personally, I'd love to see us off of oil since it feeds the terrorists. But why do for $100 and slitting our throats today what we can do for 50 cents 10 years from now.
More to the point, I would like to see some strong adversarial checking of the global warming theories by people who are not funded by oil companies. And I really want the code for all the models open-sourced so a thousand eyes can look at them for mistaken assumptions, bugs, and magic numbers.
Here's one source... there are many others. I remember the "massive hurricane season" which.. well it didn't happen. Not even close. I'm not against the idea of global warming. But I'm very skeptical of it and of the huge amounts of money and high costs that will be put on me for little gain. The fact is, the climate changes. At some point, it's going to get hot or cold and there will be nothing we can do about it short of a trillion mirrors/screens to manipulate our solar input more directly.
About half way down I started keeping some excerpts but follow the link and the rest is there for the first ones.
1. OUR CITIES WILL DIE OF THIRST
2. OUR REEF WILL DIE
3. GOODBYE, NORTH POLE
4. BEWARE HUGE WINDS (This is the hurricane warning)
5. GIANT HAILSTONES WILL SMASH THROUGH YOUR ROOF
6. NO MORE SKIING... It also confirmed the finding of a study last year in the International Journal of Climatology that the 22 most cited global warming models could not "accurately explain the (global) climate from the recent past".
7. PERTH WILL BAKE DRY
THE CSIRO last year claimed Perth was "particularly vulnerable" and had a 90 per cent chance of getting less rain and higher temperatures.
"There are not many other parts of the world where the IPCC has made a prediction that a drop in rainfall is highly likely," it said.
In fact, Perth has just had its coldest and wettest November since 1991.
Lesson: As I said, don't trust the CSIRO's model or its warnings. 8. ISLANDS WILL DROWN
THE seas will rise up to 100m by 2100, claims ABC Science Show host Robyn Williams. Six metres, suggests Al Gore. So let's take in "climate refugees" from low-lying Tuvalu, says federal Labor. And ban coastal development, says the Brumby Government.
In fact, while the seas have slowly risen since the last ice age, before man got gassy, they've stopped rising for the last two, according to data from the Jason-1 satellite.
"There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rises," the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute declared last month.
Lesson: Trust the data, not the politicians. 9. BRITAIN WILL SWELTER (this one is snarky so I don't agree with the author - they failed a 3 month prediction so he's invalidating their 100 year models-- I'm not sure that is fair, sometimes you can predict the "general" sweep of things but not the specific day to day events)
10. WE'LL BE HOTTER
SPEAKING of the Met, it has so far predicted 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 would be the world's hottest or second-hottest year on record, but nine of the past 10 years it predicted temperatures too high.
In fact, the Met this month conceded 2008 would be the coldest year this century.... Lesson: Something is wrong with warming models that predict warming in a cooling world, especially when we're each year pumping out even more greenhouse gases. Be sceptical.
Over the last 10 years, the editors of the world's leading science journals such as Science and Nature as well as popular science magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions. At the same time, they have publicly attacked scientists sceptical of the climate consensus. The key massage science editors have thus been sending out is brazen and simple: "The science of climate change is settled. The scientific debate is over. It's time to take political action."
I had thought the quote at the end of the paragraph was a quoted statement, but really it's just an opinion of the author.
While my opinion from the general articles is that there is bias, I can't find a quotable hard source around those journals. The issue is muddied by the fact that I know there are different factions. The oil company faction are basically shills protecting big oil. The alternative theory people have legitimate opinions which differ from anthrocentrist theory. We need to study these things. We need to pick apart the global warming models by having them made public along with their data and assumptions. If the science is good, it will hold up. Right now there is a huge rush for "man made global warming" with lots of political and economic changes associated with it.
10 years is not going to make a big difference-- and there are *many* things where the consequences are so high that we should be preparing for them, but i don't see us even dropping a hundred billion on near earth asteroid protection-- we could be sitting around yammering about global warming when we get hit by a quarter mile asteroid without any warning right now-- it might even set off a nuclear war.
Real science needs time, open data, true duplication of results. What we have now is a bunch of pop science political stuff going on.
I'm not sure about 50 years. The 70's were the big ice age crisis so 50 would put it at 2020 to 2030.
If it were in the 80's, then it would be 21 to 28 years. Perhaps a small percentage were screaming global warming during the ice age scare but the lack of the web meant no one heard them.
I tend towards helio centrism for the 1,000 year scale cool and warm periods and the galactic dust theory for the 200 million year ice ages. And of course, Volcanoes have an immediate 10 year scale impact.
The CO2 theory seems reasonable but is warped by group think and funding. The effort of fighting global warming deniers (i.e. the oil company shills) seems to have warped the science in the global warming debate as well. Faced with liars and shills, they became willing to lie and distort in return. That's not science tho.
Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.
---
Does "we won't fund the research because it "MIGHT" undermine climate research and so is immoral" sound like an impartial search for the truth?
The global warming agenda stinks of corporate propaganda and group think to me.
But, at least one scientist who was going to study the validity of the ice core methodology was told that it would be immoral to undercut this important foundation for global warming and he was fired so his institute could continue to get funding.
Science is often badly distorted for decades at a time. Long term, you can't stop the truth. But short term, money wins out.
The journal, Science? (Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action. Does that sound like the scientific method to you?
Nature just came out and said that the emails show nothing wrong and the ends justify the means. Does that sound like the scientific method to you?
Global warming is probably real- anthrocentric global warming is a little more in doubt.
Indian work was of higher quality 2000-2003. Since then it's dropped. The biggest issue is not the quality of the work, or the intelligence of the indian contractors but in their inability to say "no" to an unrealistic estimate. But the quality has dropped as a result of meeting unrealistic estimates. (If you put it into production with bugs... then you made your deadline.. and get *another* contract to fix the bugs).
My suspicion is that in 2000-2003, we had a lot of masters degree candidates but now they have been bid up and we are getting bachelor's degree types. Still smart, but before they were clearly more intelligent than I was. We had some back then who could walk in the door and learn everything in a very short time and begin working much faster than american candidates. But they are all gone now. The few who remain are now project managers or higher. I suppose the rest are elsewhere.
The biggest hole I've seen is that three different american groups ( and by that I mean russians, americans, philipinos, etc. who had all been here for a decade ) indicated a huge project was risky and huge. The indians just said, "yes we'll do it". The executives haven't been able to drop this huge black hole off of the status reports yet but it is clear that we spewed a ton of cash on this waste of a project (which will never see production).
Why do we allow these guys to continue living in the US when they support this kind of behavior? They should go live in china where they can disappear in the middle of the night, put in prison for practicing religion, or arbitrarily have all their property taken. Right now we let these weasels (and it's not just google) take the benefits of america while shipping jobs and money out of the country and supporting america's enemies.
And america is really just a placeholder for "western democracies". (i.e. french companies selling nuclear weapon technology to japan, british companies selling secret electronics to china, etc. etc.)
I've always expected privacy on the internet. The same way I expect privacy in my car while driving to work.
Sure, random people can see me dancing to a song, shaving, eating and talking on the cell while driving with one knee, but particular people can't and there is no record of it. Google (well EVERYONE-- the government and every company) wants to put a camera in my car now, actually- a camera on me-- any time I'm out in public, everything I do recorded since i have no right to privacy in public, right?
Hell no- we expect privacy of a certain kind in public as well. We expect privacy from surveillance without cause. We expect our actions will not be permanently recorded.
He's human. He'll do something embarassing, wrong or illegal within a year.
Perhaps a web page dedicated to pictures of him digging in his nose with his finger would be a good start. I mean.. everyone does it, what's wrong with publishing pictures of him doing that. Perhaps scratching his ass and looking down ladies blouse's too.
He's not talking about protecting children by banning them. He's talking about protecting adults by banning them. Otherwise, any conversation could put you at risk of a prison term if a random prosecuter decides to go after you.
Hal Cleveland Muvico Entertainment, L.L.C. 3101 N. Federal Highway, Sixth Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
and...
Must be Movico! That's about the only small theater chain I'm aware of with a location in Rosemont, where the son of the late Donald Stephens (former mayor) runs the city with an iron fist, esconcing fairness to all (NOT)
Cops came out to my house, saw fingerprints on the window from the person pulling it out of the frame. Didn't even bother to take them.
Had a bit of a tempest recently when the cops stayed writing tickets while not responding to a shooting taking place nearby. They never quite came out and said they had to make a quota but it was smelly.
Slashdot Mirror
America is immensely less free, with much less privacy, than when I was 20, less than 30 years ago. It's amazing how much freedom we've lost and people don't even seem to notice because they are told we are so much better than other places.
Good point. I guess it would have to turn on mutual friending.
And I bet the judge could find them in contempt of court or something for gaming the system in a way the judge didn't like.
if a lawyer and judge are facebook friends then they are automatically unable to work together.
Right now you ban the record of the friendship so the best of buds can work the same case.
They tried again in the 90s and used python. But the coders all went mad and ran around without any cloths on.
I hear some of those python full monty coders still turn up now and then.
This is a really cool new kind of fireworks. I've never seen one do this before.
Anonymous Joes elect the corporate sock puppets they are offered to vote for.
The particular party is just an illusion.
I thought a theory remained a theory as long as it fit the data.
If you found data that doesn't fit the theory, then the theory is adjusted or invalidated.
Re: the "theory" of gravity, the "theory" of evolution, etc.
They fit the known data but data could come along tomorrow (Jupiter could take a right turn and head out of the solar system and we'd have to adjust the theory). It's unlikely that a theory will be completely invalidated. They are usually pretty strong and used to be called "laws".
It's impossible to say which version is true. I know facts get muddy over a couple decades. But sure- I'll be happy to cede that point. I think the tone of the recent emails more than makes up for it in terms of bias.
There is nothing so urgent about global warming that means we MUST ACT NOW. We could instead make the models and data public and give it another 10 years study and come to a much more reasoned conclusion. It's quite possible that technological innovations in the next 10 years will make the point moot. Personally, I'd love to see us off of oil since it feeds the terrorists. But why do for $100 and slitting our throats today what we can do for 50 cents 10 years from now.
More to the point, I would like to see some strong adversarial checking of the global warming theories by people who are not funded by oil companies. And I really want the code for all the models open-sourced so a thousand eyes can look at them for mistaken assumptions, bugs, and magic numbers.
Here's one source... there are many others.
I remember the "massive hurricane season" which.. well it didn't happen. Not even close.
I'm not against the idea of global warming. But I'm very skeptical of it and of the huge amounts of money and high costs that will be put on me for little gain. The fact is, the climate changes. At some point, it's going to get hot or cold and there will be nothing we can do about it short of a trillion mirrors/screens to manipulate our solar input more directly.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_10_worst_warming_predictions/
About half way down I started keeping some excerpts but follow the link and the rest is there for the first ones.
1. OUR CITIES WILL DIE OF THIRST
2. OUR REEF WILL DIE
3. GOODBYE, NORTH POLE
4. BEWARE HUGE WINDS (This is the hurricane warning)
5. GIANT HAILSTONES WILL SMASH THROUGH YOUR ROOF
6. NO MORE SKIING ...
It also confirmed the finding of a study last year in the International Journal of Climatology that the 22 most cited global warming models could not "accurately explain the (global) climate from the recent past".
7. PERTH WILL BAKE DRY
THE CSIRO last year claimed Perth was "particularly vulnerable" and had a 90 per cent chance of getting less rain and higher temperatures.
"There are not many other parts of the world where the IPCC has made a prediction that a drop in rainfall is highly likely," it said.
In fact, Perth has just had its coldest and wettest November since 1991.
Lesson: As I said, don't trust the CSIRO's model or its warnings.
8. ISLANDS WILL DROWN
THE seas will rise up to 100m by 2100, claims ABC Science Show host Robyn Williams. Six metres, suggests Al Gore. So let's take in "climate refugees" from low-lying Tuvalu, says federal Labor. And ban coastal development, says the Brumby Government.
In fact, while the seas have slowly risen since the last ice age, before man got gassy, they've stopped rising for the last two, according to data from the Jason-1 satellite.
"There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rises," the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute declared last month.
Lesson: Trust the data, not the politicians.
9. BRITAIN WILL SWELTER
(this one is snarky so I don't agree with the author - they failed a 3 month prediction so he's invalidating their 100 year models-- I'm not sure that is fair, sometimes you can predict the "general" sweep of things but not the specific day to day events)
10. WE'LL BE HOTTER
SPEAKING of the Met, it has so far predicted 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 would be the world's hottest or second-hottest year on record, but nine of the past 10 years it predicted temperatures too high.
In fact, the Met this month conceded 2008 would be the coldest year this century. ...
Lesson: Something is wrong with warming models that predict warming in a cooling world, especially when we're each year pumping out even more greenhouse gases. Be sceptical.
The source of my comment was here... but it looks like I fell for a false quote.
http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/editorial_bias_and_the_prediction_of_climate_disaster_the_crisis_of_science
Over the last 10 years, the editors of the world's leading science journals such as Science and Nature as well as popular science magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions. At the same time, they have publicly attacked scientists sceptical of the climate consensus. The key massage science editors have thus been sending out is brazen and simple: "The science of climate change is settled. The scientific debate is over. It's time to take political action."
I had thought the quote at the end of the paragraph was a quoted statement, but really it's just an opinion of the author.
While my opinion from the general articles is that there is bias, I can't find a quotable hard source around those journals. The issue is muddied by the fact that I know there are different factions. The oil company faction are basically shills protecting big oil. The alternative theory people have legitimate opinions which differ from anthrocentrist theory. We need to study these things. We need to pick apart the global warming models by having them made public along with their data and assumptions. If the science is good, it will hold up. Right now there is a huge rush for "man made global warming" with lots of political and economic changes associated with it.
10 years is not going to make a big difference-- and there are *many* things where the consequences are so high that we should be preparing for them, but i don't see us even dropping a hundred billion on near earth asteroid protection-- we could be sitting around yammering about global warming when we get hit by a quarter mile asteroid without any warning right now-- it might even set off a nuclear war.
Real science needs time, open data, true duplication of results. What we have now is a bunch of pop science political stuff going on.
I'm not sure about 50 years. The 70's were the big ice age crisis so 50 would put it at 2020 to 2030.
If it were in the 80's, then it would be 21 to 28 years. Perhaps a small percentage were screaming global warming during the ice age scare but the lack of the web meant no one heard them.
I tend towards helio centrism for the 1,000 year scale cool and warm periods and the galactic dust theory for the 200 million year ice ages. And of course, Volcanoes have an immediate 10 year scale impact.
The CO2 theory seems reasonable but is warped by group think and funding. The effort of fighting global warming deniers (i.e. the oil company shills) seems to have warped the science in the global warming debate as well. Faced with liars and shills, they became willing to lie and distort in return. That's not science tho.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6
Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.
---
Does "we won't fund the research because it "MIGHT" undermine climate research and so is immoral" sound like an impartial search for the truth?
The global warming agenda stinks of corporate propaganda and group think to me.
It would be nice if it was that simple.
But, at least one scientist who was going to study the validity of the ice core methodology was told that it would be immoral to undercut this important foundation for global warming and he was fired so his institute could continue to get funding.
Science is often badly distorted for decades at a time. Long term, you can't stop the truth. But short term, money wins out.
The journal, Science? (Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action. Does that sound like the scientific method to you?
Nature just came out and said that the emails show nothing wrong and the ends justify the means. Does that sound like the scientific method to you?
Global warming is probably real- anthrocentric global warming is a little more in doubt.
One interesting trait that some indians have is the reversed head gestures.
They shake their head for yes and nod their head for no.
When I've pointed it out gently as a possible source of confusion, the result has been humorous for a while as the signals get crossed.
trying to muscle in with a star trek reference, eh?
I don't think you khannnnnnnnnnnn!
Indian work was of higher quality 2000-2003. Since then it's dropped. The biggest issue is not the quality of the work, or the intelligence of the indian contractors but in their inability to say "no" to an unrealistic estimate. But the quality has dropped as a result of meeting unrealistic estimates. (If you put it into production with bugs... then you made your deadline.. and get *another* contract to fix the bugs).
My suspicion is that in 2000-2003, we had a lot of masters degree candidates but now they have been bid up and we are getting bachelor's degree types. Still smart, but before they were clearly more intelligent than I was. We had some back then who could walk in the door and learn everything in a very short time and begin working much faster than american candidates. But they are all gone now. The few who remain are now project managers or higher. I suppose the rest are elsewhere.
The biggest hole I've seen is that three different american groups ( and by that I mean russians, americans, philipinos, etc. who had all been here for a decade ) indicated a huge project was risky and huge. The indians just said, "yes we'll do it". The executives haven't been able to drop this huge black hole off of the status reports yet but it is clear that we spewed a ton of cash on this waste of a project (which will never see production).
You caught me on a day I was wearing pants?
http://www.searchengineguide.com/senews/007796.html
9% of 10,000 english words censored. That's pretty stiff.
Including such gems as ...
renewable, reopen, repay, replica, reportedly, repression, reproduce, resemblance, resemble, resign, resignation, resigned, resilience, resonant, respectable, respective, respects, retain, retard, return, reveal, revocation, revolutionary, rewritten, rhythmic, rick, rightly, rights, ring, rivalry, robbery, role, rosemary, roughly, routine, rubbing, ruins, runs, rupture, ruthless, satan, satisfying, sausage, save, say, scare, scared, scarf, schedule, scraps, screenplay, secluded, segment, segregation, sent, sentence, sentimental, separate, serious, sessions, setback, seventeen, seventeenth, seventy, sexy
Why do we allow these guys to continue living in the US when they support this kind of behavior? They should go live in china where they can disappear in the middle of the night, put in prison for practicing religion, or arbitrarily have all their property taken. Right now we let these weasels (and it's not just google) take the benefits of america while shipping jobs and money out of the country and supporting america's enemies.
And america is really just a placeholder for "western democracies". (i.e. french companies selling nuclear weapon technology to japan, british companies selling secret electronics to china, etc. etc.)
I've always expected privacy on the internet. The same way I expect privacy in my car while driving to work.
Sure, random people can see me dancing to a song, shaving, eating and talking on the cell while driving with one knee, but particular people can't and there is no record of it. Google (well EVERYONE-- the government and every company) wants to put a camera in my car now, actually- a camera on me-- any time I'm out in public, everything I do recorded since i have no right to privacy in public, right?
Hell no- we expect privacy of a certain kind in public as well. We expect privacy from surveillance without cause. We expect our actions will not be permanently recorded.
He's human. He'll do something embarassing, wrong or illegal within a year.
Perhaps a web page dedicated to pictures of him digging in his nose with his finger would be a good start. I mean.. everyone does it, what's wrong with publishing pictures of him doing that. Perhaps scratching his ass and looking down ladies blouse's too.
He's not talking about protecting children by banning them. He's talking about protecting adults by banning them.
Otherwise, any conversation could put you at risk of a prison term if a random prosecuter decides to go after you.
From here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1531507185.shtml
The President of this theater chain is:
Hal Cleveland
Muvico Entertainment, L.L.C.
3101 N. Federal Highway, Sixth Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
and...
Must be Movico! That's about the only small theater chain I'm aware of with a location in Rosemont, where the son of the late Donald Stephens (former mayor) runs the city with an iron fist, esconcing fairness to all (NOT)
I'd prefer to not spend my money at another chain until I read that they chain came to it's senses and apologized to the lady.
Excuse me.. that's, er.. my, fire.. set slashdot on fire, that's what i could do.
They do.
Cops came out to my house, saw fingerprints on the window from the person pulling it out of the frame. Didn't even bother to take them.
Had a bit of a tempest recently when the cops stayed writing tickets while not responding to a shooting taking place nearby. They never quite came out and said they had to make a quota but it was smelly.