Yes, just like the 99.9% of scientists in relevant fields who accept atomic theory, general relativity, and the heliocentric solar system are just doing so to make themselves rich and powerful at the public's expense.
Interstingly atomic theory, general relativity and especially the heliocentric solar system were formulated by individuals against a prevailing and very strong scientific consensus backed up by political and religious interests.
None of them were accepted by a scientific consensus until long after they were formulated.
I can't think of a scientific theory created by consensus.
...please pay for your indulgences in this box. That's the benefit of being a Catholic, because we have got sin available to be indulged at a price that's right for you!
Obviously science isn't your strong suit, so you resort to anti-science.
a)There are direct measurements of incoming solar radiation, making all questions as to if we understand the sun irrelevant. We know that the incoming energy has not changed enough to continuously accelerating warming ( in fact, even while incoming radiation has decreased the earth has kept warming quicker and quicker).
Except that the warming is not happening "quicker and quicker". The warming of the 20th C was completely unremarkable and appears to have stopped in the 21st, the peak still being 1998.
b)Satelites sweep out the entire earth's surface measuring incoming and outgoing radiation. This has been going on for some time now. Surprise surprise, the main change is a major reduction in light leaving the earth at wavelengths which correspond to the fringes in CO2's absorption spectrum ( the peaks have saturated already ).
"the fringes in CO2's absorption spectrum" correspond to the absorption spectrum of H2O, far and away the dominant greenhouse gas.
c)Analysis of the ratio of C14 to C12 has confirmed that a huge fraction of the increased CO2 concentration is from a fossil origin. The remainder is believed to be due to deforestation.
So what? Carbon dioxide has never ever forced temperature rise. Never. Not Once.
d)The oceans have been absorbing more and more CO2 which lowers the sea water pH, leading to "ocean acidification". This is a well documented problem, so the oceans emitting CO2 due to increased solar radiation is ruled out as a cause of recent warming. e)We know to great detail how much CO2 ( and other greenhouse gases) we have emitted. Since the only other fossil source of carbon is volcanic and geological activity, this together with the C12/C14 analysis tells us volcanos are not to blame. This is also in agreement with our present understanding of geology.
A typical creationist argument. CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher for most of geological history during which time all of the plants we see today evolved and thrived. The "acidification problem" is an invented hysteria, when the fact is that the oceans ARE ALKALINE and becoming slightly less so does not imply the coral dissolving in concentrated sulfuric acid.
So, in summary: a)We know the change in radiative forcing is due to greenhouse gases.
No we don't. b)We know the major amount of extra CO2 is from fossil sources.
No we don't. We do know that 3% of carbon dioxide comes from man-made sources but we also know that the other 97% varies tremendously and rises in the atmosphere 800-1000 years AFTER a major warming. All of the ice core records show this and NEVER show the reverse.
c)We know we emit CO2 much more rapidly than volcanos and geologic activity.
Then stop breathing.
You are arguing against the facts, I imagine that is why you insist on resorting to sarcasm and bad jokes rather than addressing the issue at hand.
You are arguing against known principles of science and the geological record of life on earth. You argue that warming is somehow unprecedented when it isn't, caused by carbon dioxide rise when it never has before, cause by mankind even though the flux is tiny compared to the natural cycle, and argue that carbon dioxide rise causes changes in the radiative balance that doesn't exist. What Arrhenius didn't know was about the Quantum Theory of Light, which shows that the absortion of radiation by molecules can only proceed if the TOTAL pressure of the gas increases, not the partial pressure. You have no excuse, other than appeals to ignorance and popularity, both of which are fallacies.
You're a creationist arguing for the Earth to be in some sort of mythic balance that has somehow been disturbed by the Sin of Knowledge.
Bullshit. Just like with Essjay, you have known that Slimvirgin is Linda Mack, and you have also known that SV has been instrumental in the falsification of history, especially in relation to PanAm 103.
You have knowingly harbored and cossetted a person very strongly suspected of spying on behalf of a foreign government and should never have been allowed to touch Wikipedia never mind be one of the most powerful and thoroughly abusive admins.
Now all that's happened is that SV's user pages (and that of her sock Crum375) have been locked and at least one editor has been banned for the heinous crime of asking Crum375 whether she was Linda Mack and has she spied for MI5.
Just like with Essjay, you're in denial of reality. The only person trolling is you.
He's not being anti-environment. He's pointing out that the Environmental Emperor may be wearing a lot less than is customary.
Lets face it, if Dick Cheney were to be caught eating an endangered species, then your joy would be unconstrained. (If Dick were to choke to death while eating an endangered species, then my joy would be unconstrained)
I think the point is that hypocricy is not a partisan issue.
The next version of the Internet will so pervasive that you can communicate and be contacted from anywhere on Planet Earth, apparently.
That's not a vision, its fucking Orwellian nightmare.
I for one am grateful that I'm not contactable and traceable 24 hours per day, that I enjoy the bizarre concept called "off-line" and this weird reality called "Reality" without being constantly monitored. One of the very large downsides of all of this cool tech that keeps you in contact with the office is that people are spending more and more time at the beck and call of their employers to do work, answer e-mails and queries and that the line between work and homelife has become blurred out to almost nothing.
All of this stuff on/. about loss of privacy through this or that court ruling or that White House memo and you'll get slashdotters wringing their keyboards in fear. But make it a cool vision like "Web 3.0 - the pervasive Internet that's always accessible" and you'll have those same slashdotters raising their hands and shouting "Me first! Pick me! Pick me!"
"Such expert reports are usually written, edited, and published in the normal newspapers or even on other websites. But Wikipedia is radically different: articles there continually grow with input from numerous authors, who often remain anonymous. The end product is constantly changing, and third parties can publish their own texts or even change yours." The future authors will therefore receive some training to help them work with Wikipedia.'"
The last person to try recruiting people to edit Wikipedia for money got banned, and his reputation besmirched by the screaming idiots who administer Wikipedia. Fortunately he doesn't care now
There's only one problem with editing Wikipedia as an expert - you'll be buried by the hordes of ignoramuses who know better than you because they've got Google and there's more of them than there is of you.
If you're of a classical bent, you'd call it a Sisyphian struggle - but if you're on Slashdot you'd call it "shovelling shit against the tide".
I meant that Indiana Jones is relatively speaking worthless trash compared to the sublime classic that is Blade Runner.
I enjoyed the first Indy too, but it doesn't age well. Blade Runner, for me, improves with age like a fine wine. Every time I watch it, I see a subtly different film, because I realise that the prejudiced one is me.
Deckard (of Rachel after testing her with the machine): "How can IT not know what IT is?"
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, welcome our new Bacterial Overlords.
...these people are digging their own graves. Its the thin end of the wedge.
Perhaps the reason is because you put a comma between slashdot and org?
Yes, just like the 99.9% of scientists in relevant fields who accept atomic theory, general relativity, and the heliocentric solar system are just doing so to make themselves rich and powerful at the public's expense.
Interstingly atomic theory, general relativity and especially the heliocentric solar system were formulated by individuals against a prevailing and very strong scientific consensus backed up by political and religious interests.
None of them were accepted by a scientific consensus until long after they were formulated.
I can't think of a scientific theory created by consensus.
Just because we may never see a positive doesn't mean we should stop.
What was the saying?
"Winners don't quit and quitters don't win...and those who don't quit and don't win are idiots"
...please pay for your indulgences in this box. That's the benefit of being a Catholic, because we have got sin available to be indulged at a price that's right for you!
It sounds like typical Dutch bureaucratic intransigence. It should be the unofficial motto of the Netherlands: "Dat kan niet"
Tell HP you'll take them to court. You didn't pay Microsoft for Windows XP, you paid HP. And you want your money back.
Obviously science isn't your strong suit, so you resort to anti-science.
a)There are direct measurements of incoming solar radiation, making all questions as to if we understand the sun irrelevant. We know that the incoming energy has not changed enough to continuously accelerating warming ( in fact, even while incoming radiation has decreased the earth has kept warming quicker and quicker).
Except that the warming is not happening "quicker and quicker". The warming of the 20th C was completely unremarkable and appears to have stopped in the 21st, the peak still being 1998.
b)Satelites sweep out the entire earth's surface measuring incoming and outgoing radiation. This has been going on for some time now. Surprise surprise, the main change is a major reduction in light leaving the earth at wavelengths which correspond to the fringes in CO2's absorption spectrum ( the peaks have saturated already ).
"the fringes in CO2's absorption spectrum" correspond to the absorption spectrum of H2O, far and away the dominant greenhouse gas.
c)Analysis of the ratio of C14 to C12 has confirmed that a huge fraction of the increased CO2 concentration is from a fossil origin. The remainder is believed to be due to deforestation.
So what? Carbon dioxide has never ever forced temperature rise. Never. Not Once.
d)The oceans have been absorbing more and more CO2 which lowers the sea water pH, leading to "ocean acidification". This is a well documented problem, so the oceans emitting CO2 due to increased solar radiation is ruled out as a cause of recent warming.
e)We know to great detail how much CO2 ( and other greenhouse gases) we have emitted. Since the only other fossil source of carbon is volcanic and geological activity, this together with the C12/C14 analysis tells us volcanos are not to blame. This is also in agreement with our present understanding of geology.
A typical creationist argument. CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher for most of geological history during which time all of the plants we see today evolved and thrived. The "acidification problem" is an invented hysteria, when the fact is that the oceans ARE ALKALINE and becoming slightly less so does not imply the coral dissolving in concentrated sulfuric acid.
So, in summary:
a)We know the change in radiative forcing is due to greenhouse gases.
No we don't.
b)We know the major amount of extra CO2 is from fossil sources.
No we don't. We do know that 3% of carbon dioxide comes from man-made sources but we also know that the other 97% varies tremendously and rises in the atmosphere 800-1000 years AFTER a major warming. All of the ice core records show this and NEVER show the reverse.
c)We know we emit CO2 much more rapidly than volcanos and geologic activity.
Then stop breathing.
You are arguing against the facts, I imagine that is why you insist on resorting to sarcasm and bad jokes rather than addressing the issue at hand.
You are arguing against known principles of science and the geological record of life on earth. You argue that warming is somehow unprecedented when it isn't, caused by carbon dioxide rise when it never has before, cause by mankind even though the flux is tiny compared to the natural cycle, and argue that carbon dioxide rise causes changes in the radiative balance that doesn't exist. What Arrhenius didn't know was about the Quantum Theory of Light, which shows that the absortion of radiation by molecules can only proceed if the TOTAL pressure of the gas increases, not the partial pressure. You have no excuse, other than appeals to ignorance and popularity, both of which are fallacies.
You're a creationist arguing for the Earth to be in some sort of mythic balance that has somehow been disturbed by the Sin of Knowledge.
Which ones? I think Sahara, Gobi and Kalahari
...is he a Catholic?
Lets hope Ubuntu get bought out before they get to 'X'
After 20 litres of Coca Cola, you'll be too dead to care.
I've no idea what you're smokin' but its good stuff. Give me the cell# of your dealer.
..is that one day, the State will create a public profile of me on a networking site for everyone to see, and I won't be able to do anything about it.
I think Facebook/MySpace/Orkut are ways to acclimatise people to the notion that privacy is an outdated concept and we'd better get used to it.
"Frostmourne hungers..."
Yes, I'm old.
No wonder its called the Jesus phone. It's short for "Jesus we're being screwed by AT&T and Apple"
Novell produces lots of FUD, but unfortunately only in its employees and customers.
I would like to point out that WriterJudd is a Wordbomb sockpuppet, and might be ... well nothing actually.
;-)
Carry on
Bullshit. Just like with Essjay, you have known that Slimvirgin is Linda Mack, and you have also known that SV has been instrumental in the falsification of history, especially in relation to PanAm 103.
You have knowingly harbored and cossetted a person very strongly suspected of spying on behalf of a foreign government and should never have been allowed to touch Wikipedia never mind be one of the most powerful and thoroughly abusive admins.
Now all that's happened is that SV's user pages (and that of her sock Crum375) have been locked and at least one editor has been banned for the heinous crime of asking Crum375 whether she was Linda Mack and has she spied for MI5.
Just like with Essjay, you're in denial of reality. The only person trolling is you.
For anyone else who would like to see what lies beneath, see Wikipedia Review here
It will do. One starving family at a time.
He's not being anti-environment. He's pointing out that the Environmental Emperor may be wearing a lot less than is customary.
Lets face it, if Dick Cheney were to be caught eating an endangered species, then your joy would be unconstrained. (If Dick were to choke to death while eating an endangered species, then my joy would be unconstrained)
I think the point is that hypocricy is not a partisan issue.
The next version of the Internet will so pervasive that you can communicate and be contacted from anywhere on Planet Earth, apparently.
/. about loss of privacy through this or that court ruling or that White House memo and you'll get slashdotters wringing their keyboards in fear. But make it a cool vision like "Web 3.0 - the pervasive Internet that's always accessible" and you'll have those same slashdotters raising their hands and shouting "Me first! Pick me! Pick me!"
That's not a vision, its fucking Orwellian nightmare.
I for one am grateful that I'm not contactable and traceable 24 hours per day, that I enjoy the bizarre concept called "off-line" and this weird reality called "Reality" without being constantly monitored. One of the very large downsides of all of this cool tech that keeps you in contact with the office is that people are spending more and more time at the beck and call of their employers to do work, answer e-mails and queries and that the line between work and homelife has become blurred out to almost nothing.
All of this stuff on
It's completely fucking incredible.
According to my "Theory of Everything", what happened before the "Big Bang" was the "Big Foreplay"
Thank you thank you. I'm here all week.
"Such expert reports are usually written, edited, and published in the normal newspapers or even on other websites. But Wikipedia is radically different: articles there continually grow with input from numerous authors, who often remain anonymous. The end product is constantly changing, and third parties can publish their own texts or even change yours." The future authors will therefore receive some training to help them work with Wikipedia.'"
The last person to try recruiting people to edit Wikipedia for money got banned, and his reputation besmirched by the screaming idiots who administer Wikipedia. Fortunately he doesn't care now
There's only one problem with editing Wikipedia as an expert - you'll be buried by the hordes of ignoramuses who know better than you because they've got Google and there's more of them than there is of you.
If you're of a classical bent, you'd call it a Sisyphian struggle - but if you're on Slashdot you'd call it "shovelling shit against the tide".
I meant that Indiana Jones is relatively speaking worthless trash compared to the sublime classic that is Blade Runner.
I enjoyed the first Indy too, but it doesn't age well. Blade Runner, for me, improves with age like a fine wine. Every time I watch it, I see a subtly different film, because I realise that the prejudiced one is me.
Deckard (of Rachel after testing her with the machine): "How can IT not know what IT is?"