Batty as he was in the book wouldn't have been that memorable a villain. In the movie, he was one of the most memorable fictional villains ever. A ruthless poetic madman who was getting a crash course in emotions and ethics, and who didn't really understand life until the very end.
That's interesting because Batty isn't a bad guy at all - what changes is our perceptions about who is good and who is bad. We are prejudiced against Batty because of what he was created to do, and all of the other replicants. We think that Deckard is the good guy - except that it was Batty, not Deckard, that showed mercy, love and compassion.
"Aren't you supposed to be the good guy, Deckard?"
In the end, the real monstrosity is mankind, willing to create a slave race of people who think, feel and remember just like we can - and then give them only four years to live and a single dreadful task to perform for that time - and be grateful to their Creator for this?
"I've done...questionable things" says Batty. This isn't a robot, its a thinking sentient being asking "Why am I here? Is this all there is?" But Tyrell couldn't see it. And we can't see it - until its too late.
Blade Runner is one of the greatest movies of all time - a genuine classic whose philosophical themes will be discussed for decades to come - long after trash like Indiana Jones is forgotten.
That's not the case anymore. There's plenty of data to show that we are experiencing a rapid global climate change, unlike one that has been found in the historical record, and some part of it is due to humans. That part is probably what is making the increase in temperature is so rapid.
The data purporting to show that we are experiencing "a rapid global climate change" is the Mann Hockey Stick or its derivatives. They all fail data quality, methodological and statistical tests for significance.
But they've done the job of minimizing the immediate past history of natural climate change compared to the surface temperature record. That's the real climate change denial (or is that RealClimate?)
As Vaclav Klaus has noted, revising history in favor of a new consensus is a key characteristic of totalitarian regimes. You want "scientific consensus"? Try first studying "Trofim Lysenko" and then get back to me on it.
It really depends on whether you're asking M&M or the general climatological community.
Actually it depends on whether you ask competent statisticians or "the general climatological community" whoever that is. It's not a decision to be made on the basis of popularity but on expertise, and the "general climatological community" doesn't have a clue.
This is what a top-ranked statistician had to say:
"We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians."
You're telling me that eleven different climatological reconstructions are all based on pinecones?
No. They all included a very limited set of the same proxies and most used either the Mann PC1 (which was heavily overweighted in favor of the tree rings of bristlecone pines) or used bristlecone or foxtail tree ring proxies from the same area. Not pinecones, tree-rings.
I don't believe you. And since I'm a skeptic, I looked up the references. What a surprise! They don't all use either the Mann PC1 or bristlecone data.
That's true. They do however all use two proxy sets (Polar Urals, Tornetrask) and 8 out of 12 use either the PC1 or the bristlecone/foxtail series. All of those series have a large 20th Century ramp (unrelated to local temperature) and all were overweighted to make them dominate the reconstruction.
And the idea that they're all bullshit is essentially destroyed by their convergence. Haven't you ever played telephone? The introduction of error, or deliberate fiction, drives down convergence, it doesn't increase it. The convergence of models is considerable evidence in their favor. How do your guys explain the convergence, except for loony conspiracy theories?
I've no idea what "loony conspiracy theories" you are referring to. Perhaps you'd like to consider that none of those reconstructions is independent of each other, as they were all co-authors with Mann, Bradley or Hughes. Convergence can mean that they might be correct but only if there's such a physical artifact that they are supposed to converge to.
A more likely explanation (and one that Steve McIntyre has written about at length) is that they use mathematically the same formula, make the same methodological mistakes, fail the same statistical metrics for significance and are peer reviewed by others in a very limited set who are also not statisticians.
No conspiracy theories required. Only a group-reinforced belief.
Here's what a real statistician said:
"The social network analysis of authors' relations suggests that the "independent reconstructions" are not as independent as one might guess. Indeed, the matrix outlined in Figure 5.8 illustrates the proxies that are used more than one time in twelve major temperature reconstruction papers. The black boxes indicate that the proxy was used in a given paper. It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications."
From what I can read it seems like the reverse is true. The only valid criticism M&M made was a methodological issue that, when corrected, had no effect on the outcome of the model.
I'd suggest that you update your reading. Not only was the method incorrect, but the data was corrupt and some proxies had been secretly extended, which wholly altered the result.
There are more than a dozen climate reconstructions that uphold the original "Hockey Stick", and to my knowledge, M&M have offered no objections to any of them. For a "debunked model" it's been featured prominently in materials as recent as the IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers, so the scientific consensus clearly has not come down on the side of M&M's objections.
Yes it has been used rather extensively, but that's because (in my view) its a totem and not a scientific result. All of those other studies either used the Mann PC1 as a proxy or used the same dubious proxies including the Magic Bristlecones of Colorado that Michael Mann says do not record the local temperature but by some mystical method can reflect the Global Mean Temperature. (I'm being a little flippant, but not as much as you think)
It's really easy to toss around ad hominem attacks like they mean something in science, but that seems to be all the climate change deniers really have to offer.
What you mean like comparing some scientists to Holocaust Deniers? That sort of ad hominem?
Actually they are fakers and they've been exposed. Unfortunately some people are still in denial...
Really? How old are you? I remember Rush Limbaugh, for one, making exactly those comments in the early 90's. To wit, he brought up these new satellite results that were able to measure the effect of the full moon on temperatures and then claimed that it was funny that with such sophisticated techniques they still weren't able to measure global warming. There were plenty of ditto-heads who took that statement and ran with it.
Rush Limbaugh is dead from the neck up. And he is not a scientist.
As far as warming is concerned, yes there is definitely warming. The Earth has (generally) warmed since the trough of the Little Ice Age in the early 17th Century.
If you're referring to modern warming, the satellite record shows warming from 1979, but only in the Northern Hemisphere. The SH has not warmed at all, which sort of makes a mockery of the notion of "Global Warming"
Why don't you do a little personal research on the Mann Hockey Stick? Try to go to sites that cover actual science and not just politics though, okay? Also avoid sites that admit to being junkscience.
I have. Check out Climate Audit and spend some time asking questions about it. Stay away from UnRealClimate because its viciously skewed and you never know when or what has been deleted.
Please provide the book title and such a quote. Also, don't confuse "a climatologist from the 1970s" with "the climatologists of the 1970s". A lot of people who bring up "global cooling" seem to do that. (I do see, however, that you were good enough to qualify that only "some" were claiming that.
Climatologist of the 1970s? Stephen Schneider. Book: "The Genesis Strategy"
Here's a preface to the book "The Cooling" (1976) by Lowell Ponte, to which Schneider gave this preface:
"The dramatic importance of climate changes to the worlds future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. But this well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immeadiate consideration. At a minimum, public awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte's provocative work is a good place to start."
Here's climatologist Reid Bryson who also wrote a preface:
"The Cooling will be controversial, because among scientists, most of the matters it deals with are hotly debated. There is no agreement on whether the earth is cooling. There is not unanimous agreement on whether is has cooled, or one hemisphere has cooled and the other warmed. One would think that there might be consensus about what data there is - but there is not. There is no agreement on the causes of climatic change, or even why it should not change amongst those who so maintain. There is certainly no agreement about what the climate will do in the next century, though there is a majority opinion that it will change, more or less, one way or the other. Of that majority, a majority believe that the longer trend will be downward."
Both "The Genesis Strategy" (which hedged its bets but dealt with such things as artificially seeding the clouds to produce rain - because cooling produces less evaporation - and throwing black soot on sea ice to make it melt) and "The Cooling" talked about societies under pressure as the fair-weather (ie warm) world appeared to be coming to an end.
Schneider jumped horses during the 1980s and became a global warmer and I believe Lowell Ponte became a republican, so both were overcompensating.
Then you'd better explain what "Global Mean Temperature" means when the atmosphere is nowhere near thermal equilibrium. I assure you that no such temperature exists.
Actually I'm a liberal, and I'm afraid that climate is always changing and always will. Efforts to try to modify the Earth's climate are as futile as King Canute's edict on tidal erosion.
I think the best strategy is not trying to stabilize the unstabilizable, but on adaptation and lifting people out of poverty that makes them less susceptible to climate change one way or the other. But climate change will happen because we live on a dynamic world.
Because those fakers are still writing on RealClimate. The Hockey Stick has been debunked, but as with totalitarian regimes, repeating a Big Lie is much easier than telling the truth.
The debunkers (and I assume you're referring to McIntyre and McKitrick) have not been debunked. Every criticism of the Hockey Stick that they made has been upheld. Even the NRC Report (which bent over backwards to avoid throwing out the Hockey Stick altogether) upheld every single point made by Steve McIntyre.
When the Hockey Stick was investigated by an independent team of top-ranked statisticians, the Report was damning, calling the Hockey Stick simply "Bad Science" and noting that McIntyre's criticisms were "valid and compelling". They also noted that the so-called "independent" multiproxy studies used practically the same proxies and made the same statistical mistakes and that the peer review system had failed because of massive conflict of interest.
The question is of course, why you would believe RealClimate in the first place. Like Vaclav Klaus' totalitarian example, the blog is heavily censored and Mann pointedly does not answer questions about McIntyre's points or even more childishly even mention his name.
From that axiom, it would seem that both significant warming and significant cooling would increase storminess or desertification.
No it wouldn't, because warming episodes warm the poles relative to the tropics, reducing the temperature gradient, while cooling does the opposite. Also deserts shrink during warming and expand during cooling. That's why the Sahara, for example, is shrinking.
It's a fundamental fact about planetary atmospheres and fundamental to meteorology.
I'm sure you've heard the difference between climate and weather, so maybe you're not making that mistake - but it sure seems like you are. Of course, in your defense, it sounds like Dr. Renwick isn't helping matters.
No I'm not. I'm making the statement that even short term climate predictions are poor, and some climate scientists are making that clear.
You have produced yet another set of statements without proof that this has anything to do with man-made global warming. Sea-levelss have been rising for more than 10,000 years and somehow you've just noticed?
In any case,
a) living on a delta is a great way to see the sea rising relative to the land, but the sea-level has hardly changed while those deltas continue to sink. Ask the Mayor of New Orleans. If the deltas are not replenished then you get severe coastal erosion and deltaic islands sink into the water.
b) Tuvalu's problems are entirely caused not by rising sea-levels (because there isn't any) but by overpopulation and overextraction of water making the wells become brackish.
Yet he's presenting evidence that is supposed to be scientific. Most people do not know that most of his key "facts" are wrong. Why not tell the Academy of Motion Pictures to withdraw the Oscar?
Gore isn't a scientist. He's a politician and like most politicians he's on the make.
There are many fallacies about global warming and Gore uses them all - including the scientific fakery known as the "Mann Hockey Stick".
No, what some scientists are advocating is that the claims of Greenhouse Warming should be testable. So far, they're not except by reference to climate models which can't predict climate even three months into the future.
They're also advocating the some of the most alarmist idiotic rhetoric be toned down. Warming does not increase storminess or desertification - cooling does. That's one of the most fundamental axioms of meteorology because weather is fundamentally a function of the difference in heat energy between one part of the atmosphere and another.
Just recently, the head of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) admitted that the climate models are only right 48% of the time:
Defending the Niwa record, Dr Renwick said his organisation was doing as well as any other weather forecaster around the world. He was quoted by the country's leading newspaper, the New Zealand Herald as saying: "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." Later on New Zealand radio, Dr Renwick said: "The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two."
So beyond the rhetoric, the predictive ability of the most sophisticated climate models is not much better than a coin toss. #
Didn't hear about it? Maybe that's what Vaclav Klaus was mentioning about the control of news in a totalitarian state.
Gore has been right around the world (not to worry, he's carbon neutral by investing in his own company) and never yet answered questions from scientists about some of his statements which are simply false. He always begins by telling people not to record or note what he has to say. He then answers no questions.
Except that they (and I assume you mean skeptics) have never denied that there has been warming over the 20th Century (and I bet you're never going to provide a statement by such a person because its doesn't exist, have never denied that human activities can affect local climate conditions and hence may have a measureable effect on "global climate" (whatever that means) and c) have never, ever denied that climate can, has and will change on all timescales.
But climate alarmists have: it's called the Mann Hockey Stick and its a scientific fraud whose sole purpose is to minimize historic natural climate change while maximizing the changes of the 20th Century.
In other words, just like in totalitarian regimes, history is being rewritten and Vaclav Klaus is wanting to ask the question as to why.
You have made statements regarding the statements of a certain group of people but I'm willing to bet you won't ever bother to produce a single quote from those dread people where they have made such statements. You simply repeat what you are told by alarmists with an extreme political agenda.
Oh and by the way, the people who were saying that warming is good? Those were the climatologists of the 1970s some of whome were claiming that we were about to go into another Ice Age. I have the quotes because I have the books.
Warming reduces the size of deserts and reduces storminess and extreme weather events. Cooling does the opposite. But you don't have to believe me - you can check those alarmist climatology books of the 1970s warning of impending mass starvation as the Earth continues to cool.
Vaclav Klaus is correct. The repeated claims of "scientific consensus" are matched only the by extreme denunciation of any scientist who dares question man-made global warming or the climate models on which it is based. Its the same totalitarianism because fundamentally it comes from the same source.
Except that Vaclav Klaus is a) an expert economist and so is intimately familiar with issues of statistics and data quality and b) knows what living in a totalitarian state feels like.
He might have more expertise in these matters than you know.
Great! The ISS now has solar panels...
on
ISS Goes Solar
·
· Score: 1
It's not rotating. The effect you're seeing is called libration plus the effect of the spacecraft moving away.
If you take timelapse photos of the Moon then you can see libration in action
Since its tidally locked to Jupiter (just like the Moon is to the Earth), then there's not much spinning to be concerned about.
Io is heated continually by tidal friction, leaving its core molten and its surface full of lava lakes and the vents and calderas of active volcanoes. The tide raising force of Jupiter raises the surface of Io in some places by several meters.
Name a single monarch or single Prime Minister who didn't tear up that document and laugh. The Magna Carta has protected nobody and prosecuted nobody. It has no legal standing at all.
Its fucking morons like you who waste my time and everyone else's time by repeating lies and serial delusions. The Constitution of the UK is whatever the British State says it is.
Limitations on State Power? Don't make me laugh. Absolute power is wielded by the State and there are no rights that cannot and have not been trampled into the earth on many occasions. Freedom of speech? Not even on Speakers Corner. Freedom of expression? Nope.
I'm getting really fed up with people spouting off these misinformed "factoids" that they heard somewhere, like "Oh, Brits aren't citizens, they are subjects". Nonsense. Don't repeat somebody else's opinion you heard on Slashdot as fact. Not only are you wrong, you are actually spreading ignorance.
No its brainless pinheads who interpret "traditions" as if they were not the imaginary documents that politicians of all persuasions don't tear up and laugh every single day. That the Civil Service ignores with gay abandon.
The UK is a constitional monarchy only because it says it is. The fact is, that as a subject of the Crown, my rights are loaned to me by the State and can be rescinded in a heartbeat.
Once you give up traditional liberties such as free speech and the right to protest you are not going to easily get them back,' says Atkins
We've never had them in the first place, Mr Atkins. In order for there to be inalienable rights like freedom of speech, there must be constitutional limitations on the power of the state, legislature and judiciary, all three of which needing to be subject to the rule of law.
WE DON'T HAVE SUCH A DOCUMENT. WE DON'T LIVE IN SUCH A STATE.
We never have.
Therefore your film about rights we've never had is as useful as a chocolate teapot.
Slashdot Mirror
Can I recommend the Director's Cut? When there's less talking over the scenes, it makes you think more.
Batty as he was in the book wouldn't have been that memorable a villain. In the movie, he was one of the most memorable fictional villains ever. A ruthless poetic madman who was getting a crash course in emotions and ethics, and who didn't really understand life until the very end.
That's interesting because Batty isn't a bad guy at all - what changes is our perceptions about who is good and who is bad. We are prejudiced against Batty because of what he was created to do, and all of the other replicants. We think that Deckard is the good guy - except that it was Batty, not Deckard, that showed mercy, love and compassion.
"Aren't you supposed to be the good guy, Deckard?"
In the end, the real monstrosity is mankind, willing to create a slave race of people who think, feel and remember just like we can - and then give them only four years to live and a single dreadful task to perform for that time - and be grateful to their Creator for this?
"I've done...questionable things" says Batty. This isn't a robot, its a thinking sentient being asking "Why am I here? Is this all there is?" But Tyrell couldn't see it. And we can't see it - until its too late.
Blade Runner is one of the greatest movies of all time - a genuine classic whose philosophical themes will be discussed for decades to come - long after trash like Indiana Jones is forgotten.
That's not the case anymore. There's plenty of data to show that we are experiencing a rapid global climate change, unlike one that has been found in the historical record, and some part of it is due to humans. That part is probably what is making the increase in temperature is so rapid.
The data purporting to show that we are experiencing "a rapid global climate change" is the Mann Hockey Stick or its derivatives. They all fail data quality, methodological and statistical tests for significance.
But they've done the job of minimizing the immediate past history of natural climate change compared to the surface temperature record. That's the real climate change denial (or is that RealClimate?)
As Vaclav Klaus has noted, revising history in favor of a new consensus is a key characteristic of totalitarian regimes. You want "scientific consensus"? Try first studying "Trofim Lysenko" and then get back to me on it.
It really depends on whether you're asking M&M or the general climatological community.
Actually it depends on whether you ask competent statisticians or "the general climatological community" whoever that is. It's not a decision to be made on the basis of popularity but on expertise, and the "general climatological community" doesn't have a clue.
This is what a top-ranked statistician had to say:
"We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant
interactions with mainstream statisticians."
You're telling me that eleven different climatological reconstructions are all based on pinecones?
No. They all included a very limited set of the same proxies and most used either the Mann PC1 (which was heavily overweighted in favor of the tree rings of bristlecone pines) or used bristlecone or foxtail tree ring proxies from the same area. Not pinecones, tree-rings.
I don't believe you. And since I'm a skeptic, I looked up the references. What a surprise! They don't all use either the Mann PC1 or bristlecone data.
That's true. They do however all use two proxy sets (Polar Urals, Tornetrask) and 8 out of 12 use either the PC1 or the bristlecone/foxtail series. All of those series have a large 20th Century ramp (unrelated to local temperature) and all were overweighted to make them dominate the reconstruction.
And the idea that they're all bullshit is essentially destroyed by their convergence. Haven't you ever played telephone? The introduction of error, or deliberate fiction, drives down convergence, it doesn't increase it. The convergence of models is considerable evidence in their favor. How do your guys explain the convergence, except for loony conspiracy theories?
I've no idea what "loony conspiracy theories" you are referring to. Perhaps you'd like to consider that none of those reconstructions is independent of each other, as they were all co-authors with Mann, Bradley or Hughes. Convergence can mean that they might be correct but only if there's such a physical artifact that they are supposed to converge to.
A more likely explanation (and one that Steve McIntyre has written about at length) is that they use mathematically the same formula, make the same methodological mistakes, fail the same statistical metrics for significance and are peer reviewed by others in a very limited set who are also not statisticians.
No conspiracy theories required. Only a group-reinforced belief.
Here's what a real statistician said:
"The social network analysis of authors' relations suggests that the
"independent reconstructions" are not as independent as one might guess. Indeed, the
matrix outlined in Figure 5.8 illustrates the proxies that are used more than one time in
twelve major temperature reconstruction papers. The black boxes indicate that the proxy
was used in a given paper. It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the
papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot
really claim to be independent verifications."
You can find the entire report here.
No. I don't believe any of those things.
From what I can read it seems like the reverse is true. The only valid criticism M&M made was a methodological issue that, when corrected, had no effect on the outcome of the model.
I'd suggest that you update your reading. Not only was the method incorrect, but the data was corrupt and some proxies had been secretly extended, which wholly altered the result.
There are more than a dozen climate reconstructions that uphold the original "Hockey Stick", and to my knowledge, M&M have offered no objections to any of them. For a "debunked model" it's been featured prominently in materials as recent as the IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers, so the scientific consensus clearly has not come down on the side of M&M's objections.
Yes it has been used rather extensively, but that's because (in my view) its a totem and not a scientific result. All of those other studies either used the Mann PC1 as a proxy or used the same dubious proxies including the Magic Bristlecones of Colorado that Michael Mann says do not record the local temperature but by some mystical method can reflect the Global Mean Temperature. (I'm being a little flippant, but not as much as you think)
It's really easy to toss around ad hominem attacks like they mean something in science, but that seems to be all the climate change deniers really have to offer.
What you mean like comparing some scientists to Holocaust Deniers? That sort of ad hominem?
Actually they are fakers and they've been exposed. Unfortunately some people are still in denial...
Really? How old are you? I remember Rush Limbaugh, for one, making exactly those comments in the early 90's. To wit, he brought up these new satellite results that were able to measure the effect of the full moon on temperatures and then claimed that it was funny that with such sophisticated techniques they still weren't able to measure global warming. There were plenty of ditto-heads who took that statement and ran with it.
Rush Limbaugh is dead from the neck up. And he is not a scientist.
As far as warming is concerned, yes there is definitely warming. The Earth has (generally) warmed since the trough of the Little Ice Age in the early 17th Century.
If you're referring to modern warming, the satellite record shows warming from 1979, but only in the Northern Hemisphere. The SH has not warmed at all, which sort of makes a mockery of the notion of "Global Warming"
Why don't you do a little personal research on the Mann Hockey Stick? Try to go to sites that cover actual science and not just politics though, okay? Also avoid sites that admit to being junkscience.
I have. Check out Climate Audit and spend some time asking questions about it. Stay away from UnRealClimate because its viciously skewed and you never know when or what has been deleted.
Please provide the book title and such a quote. Also, don't confuse "a climatologist from the 1970s" with "the climatologists of the 1970s". A lot of people who bring up "global cooling" seem to do that. (I do see, however, that you were good enough to qualify that only "some" were claiming that.
Climatologist of the 1970s? Stephen Schneider. Book: "The Genesis Strategy"
Here's a preface to the book "The Cooling" (1976) by Lowell Ponte, to which Schneider gave this preface:
"The dramatic importance of climate changes to the worlds future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. But this well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immeadiate consideration. At a minimum, public awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte's provocative work is a good place to start."
Here's climatologist Reid Bryson who also wrote a preface:
"The Cooling will be controversial, because among scientists, most of the matters it deals with are hotly debated. There is no agreement on whether the earth is cooling. There is not unanimous agreement on whether is has cooled, or one hemisphere has cooled and the other warmed. One would think that there might be consensus about what data there is - but there is not. There is no agreement on the causes of climatic change, or even why it should not change amongst those who so maintain. There is certainly no agreement about what the climate will do in the next century, though there is a majority opinion that it will change, more or less, one way or the other. Of that majority, a majority believe that the longer trend will be downward."
Both "The Genesis Strategy" (which hedged its bets but dealt with such things as artificially seeding the clouds to produce rain - because cooling produces less evaporation - and throwing black soot on sea ice to make it melt) and "The Cooling" talked about societies under pressure as the fair-weather (ie warm) world appeared to be coming to an end.
Schneider jumped horses during the 1980s and became a global warmer and I believe Lowell Ponte became a republican, so both were overcompensating.
Then you'd better explain what "Global Mean Temperature" means when the atmosphere is nowhere near thermal equilibrium. I assure you that no such temperature exists.
Actually I'm a liberal, and I'm afraid that climate is always changing and always will. Efforts to try to modify the Earth's climate are as futile as King Canute's edict on tidal erosion.
I think the best strategy is not trying to stabilize the unstabilizable, but on adaptation and lifting people out of poverty that makes them less susceptible to climate change one way or the other. But climate change will happen because we live on a dynamic world.
Because those fakers are still writing on RealClimate. The Hockey Stick has been debunked, but as with totalitarian regimes, repeating a Big Lie is much easier than telling the truth.
The debunkers (and I assume you're referring to McIntyre and McKitrick) have not been debunked. Every criticism of the Hockey Stick that they made has been upheld. Even the NRC Report (which bent over backwards to avoid throwing out the Hockey Stick altogether) upheld every single point made by Steve McIntyre.
When the Hockey Stick was investigated by an independent team of top-ranked statisticians, the Report was damning, calling the Hockey Stick simply "Bad Science" and noting that McIntyre's criticisms were "valid and compelling". They also noted that the so-called "independent" multiproxy studies used practically the same proxies and made the same statistical mistakes and that the peer review system had failed because of massive conflict of interest.
The question is of course, why you would believe RealClimate in the first place. Like Vaclav Klaus' totalitarian example, the blog is heavily censored and Mann pointedly does not answer questions about McIntyre's points or even more childishly even mention his name.
From that axiom, it would seem that both significant warming and significant cooling would increase storminess or desertification.
No it wouldn't, because warming episodes warm the poles relative to the tropics, reducing the temperature gradient, while cooling does the opposite. Also deserts shrink during warming and expand during cooling. That's why the Sahara, for example, is shrinking.
It's a fundamental fact about planetary atmospheres and fundamental to meteorology.
I'm sure you've heard the difference between climate and weather, so maybe you're not making that mistake - but it sure seems like you are. Of course, in your defense, it sounds like Dr. Renwick isn't helping matters.
No I'm not. I'm making the statement that even short term climate predictions are poor, and some climate scientists are making that clear.
You have produced yet another set of statements without proof that this has anything to do with man-made global warming. Sea-levelss have been rising for more than 10,000 years and somehow you've just noticed?
In any case,
a) living on a delta is a great way to see the sea rising relative to the land, but the sea-level has hardly changed while those deltas continue to sink. Ask the Mayor of New Orleans. If the deltas are not replenished then you get severe coastal erosion and deltaic islands sink into the water.
b) Tuvalu's problems are entirely caused not by rising sea-levels (because there isn't any) but by overpopulation and overextraction of water making the wells become brackish.
Here's what the scientists say:
"The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year." and
"The historical record (from Tuvalu) shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."
So the sea-level rise is just barely measureable and shows no acceleration due to global warming, man-made or otherwise.
Yet he's presenting evidence that is supposed to be scientific. Most people do not know that most of his key "facts" are wrong. Why not tell the Academy of Motion Pictures to withdraw the Oscar?
Gore isn't a scientist. He's a politician and like most politicians he's on the make.
There are many fallacies about global warming and Gore uses them all - including the scientific fakery known as the "Mann Hockey Stick".
They're also advocating the some of the most alarmist idiotic rhetoric be toned down. Warming does not increase storminess or desertification - cooling does. That's one of the most fundamental axioms of meteorology because weather is fundamentally a function of the difference in heat energy between one part of the atmosphere and another.
Just recently, the head of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) admitted that the climate models are only right 48% of the time:
So beyond the rhetoric, the predictive ability of the most sophisticated climate models is not much better than a coin toss. #
Didn't hear about it? Maybe that's what Vaclav Klaus was mentioning about the control of news in a totalitarian state.
You know its also possible to vote for Gore and yet criticize his handling of those scientific "facts"?
It's true. You can.
Gore has been right around the world (not to worry, he's carbon neutral by investing in his own company) and never yet answered questions from scientists about some of his statements which are simply false. He always begins by telling people not to record or note what he has to say. He then answers no questions.
You mean the billions pumped into climate modelling and the IPCC process? Absolutely.
Except that Tuvalu isn't sinking under the waves. There has been no measureable sea-level rise in that part of the Pacific in the last 30 years.
Except that they (and I assume you mean skeptics) have never denied that there has been warming over the 20th Century (and I bet you're never going to provide a statement by such a person because its doesn't exist, have never denied that human activities can affect local climate conditions and hence may have a measureable effect on "global climate" (whatever that means) and c) have never, ever denied that climate can, has and will change on all timescales.
But climate alarmists have: it's called the Mann Hockey Stick and its a scientific fraud whose sole purpose is to minimize historic natural climate change while maximizing the changes of the 20th Century.
In other words, just like in totalitarian regimes, history is being rewritten and Vaclav Klaus is wanting to ask the question as to why.
You have made statements regarding the statements of a certain group of people but I'm willing to bet you won't ever bother to produce a single quote from those dread people where they have made such statements. You simply repeat what you are told by alarmists with an extreme political agenda.
Oh and by the way, the people who were saying that warming is good? Those were the climatologists of the 1970s some of whome were claiming that we were about to go into another Ice Age. I have the quotes because I have the books.
Warming reduces the size of deserts and reduces storminess and extreme weather events. Cooling does the opposite. But you don't have to believe me - you can check those alarmist climatology books of the 1970s warning of impending mass starvation as the Earth continues to cool.
Vaclav Klaus is correct. The repeated claims of "scientific consensus" are matched only the by extreme denunciation of any scientist who dares question man-made global warming or the climate models on which it is based. Its the same totalitarianism because fundamentally it comes from the same source.
Except that Vaclav Klaus is a) an expert economist and so is intimately familiar with issues of statistics and data quality and b) knows what living in a totalitarian state feels like.
He might have more expertise in these matters than you know.
Now remind me again...what is the ISS for?
It's not rotating. The effect you're seeing is called libration plus the effect of the spacecraft moving away. If you take timelapse photos of the Moon then you can see libration in action
Since its tidally locked to Jupiter (just like the Moon is to the Earth), then there's not much spinning to be concerned about.
Io is heated continually by tidal friction, leaving its core molten and its surface full of lava lakes and the vents and calderas of active volcanoes. The tide raising force of Jupiter raises the surface of Io in some places by several meters.
Name a single monarch or single Prime Minister who didn't tear up that document and laugh. The Magna Carta has protected nobody and prosecuted nobody. It has no legal standing at all.
No WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Its fucking morons like you who waste my time and everyone else's time by repeating lies and serial delusions. The Constitution of the UK is whatever the British State says it is.
Limitations on State Power? Don't make me laugh. Absolute power is wielded by the State and there are no rights that cannot and have not been trampled into the earth on many occasions. Freedom of speech? Not even on Speakers Corner. Freedom of expression? Nope.
I'm getting really fed up with people spouting off these misinformed "factoids" that they heard somewhere, like "Oh, Brits aren't citizens, they are subjects". Nonsense. Don't repeat somebody else's opinion you heard on Slashdot as fact. Not only are you wrong, you are actually spreading ignorance.
No its brainless pinheads who interpret "traditions" as if they were not the imaginary documents that politicians of all persuasions don't tear up and laugh every single day. That the Civil Service ignores with gay abandon.
The UK is a constitional monarchy only because it says it is. The fact is, that as a subject of the Crown, my rights are loaned to me by the State and can be rescinded in a heartbeat.
You're living in a dreamworld.
Once you give up traditional liberties such as free speech and the right to protest you are not going to easily get them back,' says Atkins
We've never had them in the first place, Mr Atkins. In order for there to be inalienable rights like freedom of speech, there must be constitutional limitations on the power of the state, legislature and judiciary, all three of which needing to be subject to the rule of law.
WE DON'T HAVE SUCH A DOCUMENT. WE DON'T LIVE IN SUCH A STATE.
We never have.
Therefore your film about rights we've never had is as useful as a chocolate teapot.