I expect the endorsements of those scientific organizations were made before they found out from the climate gate emails, the extent of the "trick" being played on us. Those endorsements may go away in the coming months.
Wikipedia and realclimate are highly biased sources on this issue. Realclimate defends hiding the decline. Are you unbiased enough to fairly recognize bad science? Will you admit that it was bad science to hide the decline from the hockey stick graph? Will you admit that it hurts the credibility of the climate science community to defend that trick?
The divergence was hidden. They may have made a vague mention of it buried in the text, but the graph was the key element to sway public opinion, and they left the divergence out of the graph for no good reason. Also, I'm not sure, but I don't think they talked about it until they were exposed by skeptics. And they continue to hide it from the general public by continuing to minimize discussion of it and continuing to minimize the divergence in the graphs they publish.
Is there actually an issue with the reliability of the data?
Absolutely. If a tree is giving falsely low temperatures for the last 50 years, for some reason they still don't know, then temperatures from that tree cannot be trusted for any time period. Failure to put the divergence clear and up front was corrupt science. They wouldn't think such tricks were acceptable if an oil company tried to pull them.
Are you saying that the world is, in fact, getting cooler?
No, I'm saying that my understanding is that some of the tree ring proxies are showing temperatures declining relative to the thermometer temperatures, or at least not rising as fast.
Having just two mistakes in the report is actually incredible.
Follow a site like wattsupwiththat.com and you'll find out about a lot more than two mistakes in the IPCC report. Not that skeptic sites aren't filled with plenty of mistakes and garbage as well.
Does the errors about glaciers ice loss question the existence of climate change?
Yes, because every one of us can't go out and do the research ourselves. We have to evaluate whether the climate scientists are credible. This error, together with others has cast serious doubt on their credibility. And unfortunately the general science community was apparently circling the wagons with the climate scientists until the climate gate emails came out. I don't know if they still are. I'm guessing people are waiting for everything to shake out before deciding what side to join up with again. For example, it's going to be interesting when the Attorney General finally manages to pry Michael Mann's emails out of the University of Pennsylvania. And there will likely be a lot more skeptical research being published over the next couple years.
I'd never heard of "Mike's Nature trick", so I looked it up. Here's what Google turned up:
"Mike's Nature trick" refers to the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data.
"Along with"? More like "instead of".
..."Hide the decline" refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem" where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960...
Diverge in what direction? Downward right? Besides, whether it was a decline in temperature or decline in reliability, they had no business hiding it. They wouldn't accept such a practice if it had been done by an oil company. They should have just plotted the full proxy data including the known unreliable parts along with the thermometer data in a different color. Then we all would have known immediately of the unreliability of the proxy data. But they didn't because they knew that if we could see that the proxy data was unreliable and giving falsely low temps for the last 50 years, then nobody would have given the proxies any credibility a thousand years ago.
One other thing: quoting only the "hide the decline" part of the email is rather disingenuous, since a lot of people will assume, without context, that it refers to a decline in temperature.
I didn't have time to expound on the subject in depth. And I think it does refer to a decline in temperature.
So in a 3000 page report, you can point to one minor error...
One error. LOL. Surely you jest. I've heard of lots of errors. Of course I didn't cite them all. The reader may be interested in investigating further.
This wasn't just a typo in one section of the report. The erroneous number came with a cite to an article by the highly partisan World Wildlife Fund, which wasn't even a piece of actual research on the subject. In other words, whoever put that number and cite in that part of the report, DIDN'T EVEN CHECK THAT THE EVIDENCE EVEN EXISTED when they wrote up the citation. They just believed the WWF article without even checking its source.
Before the climate gate emails were released I had heard of the "hockey stick" but I didn't look into it because I thought it was probably just anti-science oil company propaganda. But after hearing about the trick to "hide the decline", I looked into it more. Climate scientists wanted to get rid of the medieval warm period because if temps were just as warm in the recent past, then there couldn't be much worry about today. So they found some tree rings that showed temps were cool back in the medieval warm period. Problem was that some of these trees were saying that temps were also cool during the last 50 years. Instead of eliminating these lying trees from the data set, they covered up the inconvenient data for the last 50 years from the lying trees with thermometer measurements and left us to think that these lying trees were telling the truth about the temperatures 1000 years ago.
There seems to be two main defenses given by the climate science community for these cover ups. One is that some of the trees don't show this "divergence" from the thermometer temperatures. But if it is true that they have trees that give good data, then why not exclude the trees that lie? They can't claim they're reluctant to cherry pick the trees because this whole temperature from tree rings procedure demands picking out trees that are growth limited only by temperature and not anything else like water or CO2, and therefore cherry picking is inherently part of the process. And besides, even if they ought to leave the lying trees in, that's still no excuse to "hide the decline" in the final results.
The other defense is that other studies by other researchers using other proxies, like sediments, have come to similar conclusions about the medieval warm period. But that's kind of like saying "My methods may have been corrupt, but my good buddies who have defended my corrupt methods, have gotten similar results in their research." This defense doesn't alleviate my concerns. And even getting correct results doesn't justify corrupt methods.
If you think my criticisms of the hockey stick are harsh, imagine what the climate science community would think if someone like an oil company used similar methods in some research. Imagine an oil company found the medieval warm period was much hotter than today, but their results were based in part on rings from trees that showed temperatures from the last 50 years were much hotter than they really were, and the oil companies hid the results from the lying trees by replacing them with thermometer temps. But of course nobody would criticize that method if sediment studies from other oil companies showed the same results, right?
I don't know about the credibility of this report. Maybe the glaciers are melting because of human CO2, maybe they would have melted anyway, or maybe they aren't even melting. But when the supposedly respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made that mistake in their report where they claimed the Himilayan glaciers would melt by 2035, it exposed more than a simple mistake. It showed that for their report, the IPCC didn't do what you would expect, which is thoroughly scrutinize what they cited. Nor did they look over what they cited to see if it was reasonable. No, they didn't bother with all that. They didn't even check to see if the evidence they cited about the effects of global warming EVEN EXISTED.
The entire climate science community has defended "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" so that people wouldn't see how bad their evidence is, instead of criticizing the hiding of results that cast major doubt on their evidence. None of them have any credibility left, and will never get it back until they condemn instead of defend "Mike's Nature trick".
My criticism of climate science on Slashdot are routinely the target of moderator abuse, so watch the down moded comments for good stuff.
Investment in teachers, shows, cds, long hard labor, and such things are why an author deserves a copymonopoly for a limited time. But even those investments don't compare to the value of what an author learned from those that came before, and which the author didn't pay for. For example, Mozart gets no royalties from what this composer learned from Mozart. Nor did this composer pay for what he learned about music by listening to the radio.
I don't know where you are from, but 'round here teachers don't work for free.
But listening to and learning from the radio is free. And downloading and learning from Mozart is free.
If your reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion, then no creative person should ever expect to be paid for their arts, no matter how popular they become, unless they created their art in a vaccume.
I support copymonopoly, as the constitution does, for a limited time. But since an author didn't create his work in a vacuum, he shouldn't expect exclusive rights to it forever. And violation of copymonopoly which is claimed for longer than the constitutionally authorized limited time, is both legally and morally acceptable. Though the courts seem to claim otherwise.
So in closing- if the music and movies really ARE so worthless, and SO unoriginal, that you really think they don't deserve to get paid... then instead of ripping someone off, shouldn't you just be making it yourself? If it is something you can not do, or are not willing to do, or don't have the time or resources to do, and yet you want to use it- then it really is NOT so valueless, is it? In the end, even if the final product itself is worth very little to you, you should STILL at least be willing to pay someone for doing something which you yourself were not willing to do.
Though others may be, I'm not advocating the elimination of copymonopoly. I'm only advocating that it be for a limited time. In fact, the constitution only authorizes copymonopoly for a limited time. Congress is not authorized to extend copyright beyond a limited time. The constitution is the law that supersedes the laws below it, so those who claim and enforce copymonopoly after long periods are actually lawbreakers.
But if the value of your work is largely derived from the ideas you learned from others, you shouldn't claim exclusive and perpetual right to your work. Copymonopoly for a limited time should suffice.
Just because the author may derive ideas and themes that are universal, doesn't mean people shouldn't pay him for the beautifully-crafted little sentences, the quirky little off-harmony note or the intriguing drawing of character.
They should get paid, but only for a limited time.
Anybody who claims they have some intrinsic right to another's work needs to seriously consider whether they are a geniune member of society or a freeloading rat.
Most of the ideas in the creations of most authors are taken from the work of previous authors without compensation. But I expect you wouldn't consider them freeloading rats to spite them taking the ideas of others without compensation.
How does an author get somebody to "assemble" the music? It doesn't make sense. From what I've seen, the creative process is much more challenging than that.
To author a creation takes a lot more work than assembling a sandwich, but still, the vast majority of the labor of authoring a valuable creation was carried out even before the author was born.
Good. Go create your 'magnum opus'. I agree with you, all artists, software developers, etc, stand on the shoulders of giants. But don't minimize the creativity of said artists. If creativity is just a commodity; a product of regurgitating input...then where is your ground-breaking application? Your musical 'magnum opus'?
An author has to add something unique to a work for it to be worth buying, and it seems like a good idea to reward that with a copymonopoly for a limited time. For the vast majority of successful works, fifteen years will probably bring plenty of profits. If a work isn't expected to make plenty of profit within fifteen years, the author will probably either be willing to do it for free, or won't do it at all. There are a few exceptions to this, such as encyclopedias. But nothing needs a 100 year copymonopoly.
Interesting, but you seem to have assumed something HUGE in your first sentence of which _needs_ a citation provided.
"Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay."
How in the world can you make that claim?
Authors get the vast majority of their ideas from authors that have come before them. Without those examples to start with, authors would have to reinvent everything, and being unable to reinvent everything, their work would be garbage. For example, many musicians learn much from Mozart. But neither Mozart or his heirs get any royalties. Even Mozart learned almost everything he knew from musicians that came before him. Since most of what makes an author's work great, wasn't created by the author, there's no reason to say that an author should "own" the work exclusively. If authors still think they should "own" their works entirely, then fine, then they should just think of their work falling in to the public domain as a property tax.
I like how you have the right to share other people's material. HEY DUDE IM SHARING UR SAMMICH THX MAN DONT WANNA GIVE UP MAH RIGHTS EITHER
Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay. If you got the ingredients to your sandwich from a charity, and you begged for someone else to assemble it for you, and somebody else invented the methods of producing the ingredients, and some volunteer soldier protected you from having your sandwich stolen by invaders, and all you did was specify the layout of the ingredients between the the bread, I still wouldn't steal it from you. But if I did I would feel a lot less guilty about it. I support copymonopoly, but only for the minimum length of time needed to incentivise people to produce it. Fifteen years, like our first congress authorized, is plenty for the vast majority of works. Even less would be appropriate for most works. To let copymonopoly extend for 150 years like current law is a violation of the constitution's requirement that copymonopoly not go on forever. More than 100 years is forever for all practical purposes and is totally unnecessary to incentivise production. It's very damaging to humanity to restrict access to all that old information.
Use your body to block the source of either the signal or the noise. Hold your WiFi radio (either your laptop or your access point) in front of you and slowly rotate while you watch the signal or noise level. When it drops, the source is probably behind you. Walk down the street if necessary and do it again to triangulate the signal.
Grandparent thought you were joking because one of the special features of python is that it doesn't use brackets for statement grouping and instead uses indenting. Thus all working python programs must be properly indented. I guess you could still complain if someone doesn't use the number of indent spaces you like for each block, but I assume your big issue is the confusion of various indenting styles rather than just the size of the indent.
Also on the Spacex updates page you can see the parachutes mounted in the interstage, implying that the entire first stage will be parachuted down. I would think the engine cluster would sink without the fuel tanks for buoyancy.
The cork is for protection during reentry. From the Spacex updates page:
It is important to emphasize that the cork is not needed for ascent and there is no risk to flight even if it all came off. This is for thermal protection on reentry to allow for the possibility of recovery and reuse. While stage recovery is not a primary mission objective on this inaugural launch, it is part of our long-term plans, and we will attempt to recover the first stage on this initial Falcon 9 flight.
What makes this one of the most important rocket launches in history is that, unlike at other rocket companies, the founder, Elon Musk, is determined to make a reusable rocket. The first stage of this rocket has been fitted with parachutes and covered with cork to protect it from the heat of reentry so that it can be recovered and studied in hopes of making them reusable in the future. The success of this launch solidifies the success of Spacex, and thereby dramaitcally increases the chances of huge benefits to humanity from much more affordable space launch. Also, the other rocket companies are probably very worried about losing all their business to Spacex now.
The data that comes from trees that give falsely low temperatures for the last 50 years.
The Hockey Stick is made to look less warm because GOOD data was added.
If a tree is known to be giving falsely low temperatures, how can the data that comes from it be considered good?
The original data was from a NW Europe data only study. This is not a good set of data for a GLOBAL phenomenon.
Expanding coverage is a good idea, but that doesn't justify using data from trees known to give falsely low temperatures.
The bad data is the data that you have that says the hockey stick is wrong.
I actually don't have any data that says the hockey stick is wrong. I just think that the defense of bad methods like this, kills the credibility of the climate science establishment. Vintermann wrote:
It could be that when "almost all the climate scientists support the use of known bad tree rings", they actually disagree that they are bad, you know.
They admit that some of the trees included in their studies give falsely low temps for the last 50 years. Of course they disagree that that is a problem. But I haven't seem them give any reasonable justification for using data from trees that show falsely low temps to prove the temps were low a thousand years ago. I notice that you also haven't been able to give any justification for that.
And unlike Exxon, climate science is not a monolithic for-profit corporation with perverse incentives with regard to pollution.
Bad scientific method is just as bad for climate scientists as it is for oil companies.
I'd prefer that climate scientists condemn the use of known bad data. In making the hockey stick, Mann wanted to make the medieval warm period look cooler so he found some tree rings that gave falsely low temperatures for the last 50 years, and used those tree rings to show that temperatures were low a thousand years ago. If climate scientists had and would, cut Mann loose and condemn the use of known bad data, it would help their cause, but since they won't, climate scientists have no credibility.
Amazingly they make excuses for Mann. If Exxon had wanted to make the medieval warm period look really hot and had found tree rings that showed the medieval warm period was very hot, but the rings gave falsely high temps for the last 50 years, Exxon would be accused of murder. But it's OK for a climate scientist to do that.
One of their excuses is that some of the tree rings don't have the false temps for the last few decades, and still show a cool medieval warm period. But if that's true then they should just use those rings and leave out the rings that give errors. That they refuse to leave out the bad rings makes me doubt they can get the result they want without them.
Another one of their excuses is that other proxies show similar temperatures. But since almost all the climate scientists support the use of known bad tree rings, why should we trust the other studies from the same gang. That would be like Exxon giving the excuse that they can use bad tree rings because Shell Oil did a sediment study that found the same result.
If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall... turn the property over to the police department...
If you think "has not claimed the property" was meant to be interpreted against someone in a situation like this, consider if a company had said about some lost item "That's just a non functional mockup and the CEO says it's too much trouble for us to come get it back, so you can just keep it." Would you then seriously expect the finder to take it to the police and have the police place a notice in the paper for a lost and unclaimed item? I don't think "has not claimed the property", applies after the owner is contacted and refuses to take back the item. It is no longer lost and unclaimed, it is found and abandoned. Stupidly and mistakenly, but still intentionally.
Slashdot Mirror
I expect the endorsements of those scientific organizations were made before they found out from the climate gate emails, the extent of the "trick" being played on us. Those endorsements may go away in the coming months.
Wikipedia and realclimate are highly biased sources on this issue. Realclimate defends hiding the decline. Are you unbiased enough to fairly recognize bad science? Will you admit that it was bad science to hide the decline from the hockey stick graph? Will you admit that it hurts the credibility of the climate science community to defend that trick?
The divergence was hidden. They may have made a vague mention of it buried in the text, but the graph was the key element to sway public opinion, and they left the divergence out of the graph for no good reason. Also, I'm not sure, but I don't think they talked about it until they were exposed by skeptics. And they continue to hide it from the general public by continuing to minimize discussion of it and continuing to minimize the divergence in the graphs they publish.
Absolutely. If a tree is giving falsely low temperatures for the last 50 years, for some reason they still don't know, then temperatures from that tree cannot be trusted for any time period. Failure to put the divergence clear and up front was corrupt science. They wouldn't think such tricks were acceptable if an oil company tried to pull them.
No, I'm saying that my understanding is that some of the tree ring proxies are showing temperatures declining relative to the thermometer temperatures, or at least not rising as fast.
Follow a site like wattsupwiththat.com and you'll find out about a lot more than two mistakes in the IPCC report. Not that skeptic sites aren't filled with plenty of mistakes and garbage as well.
Yes, because every one of us can't go out and do the research ourselves. We have to evaluate whether the climate scientists are credible. This error, together with others has cast serious doubt on their credibility. And unfortunately the general science community was apparently circling the wagons with the climate scientists until the climate gate emails came out. I don't know if they still are. I'm guessing people are waiting for everything to shake out before deciding what side to join up with again. For example, it's going to be interesting when the Attorney General finally manages to pry Michael Mann's emails out of the University of Pennsylvania. And there will likely be a lot more skeptical research being published over the next couple years.
"Along with"? More like "instead of".
Diverge in what direction? Downward right?
Besides, whether it was a decline in temperature or decline in reliability, they had no business hiding it. They wouldn't accept such a practice if it had been done by an oil company. They should have just plotted the full proxy data including the known unreliable parts along with the thermometer data in a different color. Then we all would have known immediately of the unreliability of the proxy data. But they didn't because they knew that if we could see that the proxy data was unreliable and giving falsely low temps for the last 50 years, then nobody would have given the proxies any credibility a thousand years ago.
I didn't have time to expound on the subject in depth. And I think it does refer to a decline in temperature.
One error. LOL. Surely you jest. I've heard of lots of errors. Of course I didn't cite them all. The reader may be interested in investigating further.
This wasn't just a typo in one section of the report. The erroneous number came with a cite to an article by the highly partisan World Wildlife Fund, which wasn't even a piece of actual research on the subject. In other words, whoever put that number and cite in that part of the report, DIDN'T EVEN CHECK THAT THE EVIDENCE EVEN EXISTED when they wrote up the citation. They just believed the WWF article without even checking its source.
Before the climate gate emails were released I had heard of the "hockey stick" but I didn't look into it because I thought it was probably just anti-science oil company propaganda. But after hearing about the trick to "hide the decline", I looked into it more. Climate scientists wanted to get rid of the medieval warm period because if temps were just as warm in the recent past, then there couldn't be much worry about today. So they found some tree rings that showed temps were cool back in the medieval warm period. Problem was that some of these trees were saying that temps were also cool during the last 50 years. Instead of eliminating these lying trees from the data set, they covered up the inconvenient data for the last 50 years from the lying trees with thermometer measurements and left us to think that these lying trees were telling the truth about the temperatures 1000 years ago.
There seems to be two main defenses given by the climate science community for these cover ups. One is that some of the trees don't show this "divergence" from the thermometer temperatures. But if it is true that they have trees that give good data, then why not exclude the trees that lie? They can't claim they're reluctant to cherry pick the trees because this whole temperature from tree rings procedure demands picking out trees that are growth limited only by temperature and not anything else like water or CO2, and therefore cherry picking is inherently part of the process. And besides, even if they ought to leave the lying trees in, that's still no excuse to "hide the decline" in the final results.
The other defense is that other studies by other researchers using other proxies, like sediments, have come to similar conclusions about the medieval warm period. But that's kind of like saying "My methods may have been corrupt, but my good buddies who have defended my corrupt methods, have gotten similar results in their research." This defense doesn't alleviate my concerns. And even getting correct results doesn't justify corrupt methods.
If you think my criticisms of the hockey stick are harsh, imagine what the climate science community would think if someone like an oil company used similar methods in some research. Imagine an oil company found the medieval warm period was much hotter than today, but their results were based in part on rings from trees that showed temperatures from the last 50 years were much hotter than they really were, and the oil companies hid the results from the lying trees by replacing them with thermometer temps. But of course nobody would criticize that method if sediment studies from other oil companies showed the same results, right?
I don't know about the credibility of this report. Maybe the glaciers are melting because of human CO2, maybe they would have melted anyway, or maybe they aren't even melting. But when the supposedly respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made that mistake in their report where they claimed the Himilayan glaciers would melt by 2035, it exposed more than a simple mistake. It showed that for their report, the IPCC didn't do what you would expect, which is thoroughly scrutinize what they cited. Nor did they look over what they cited to see if it was reasonable. No, they didn't bother with all that. They didn't even check to see if the evidence they cited about the effects of global warming EVEN EXISTED.
The entire climate science community has defended "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" so that people wouldn't see how bad their evidence is, instead of criticizing the hiding of results that cast major doubt on their evidence. None of them have any credibility left, and will never get it back until they condemn instead of defend "Mike's Nature trick".
My criticism of climate science on Slashdot are routinely the target of moderator abuse, so watch the down moded comments for good stuff.
Investment in teachers, shows, cds, long hard labor, and such things are why an author deserves a copymonopoly for a limited time. But even those investments don't compare to the value of what an author learned from those that came before, and which the author didn't pay for. For example, Mozart gets no royalties from what this composer learned from Mozart. Nor did this composer pay for what he learned about music by listening to the radio.
crmarvin42 wrote:
But listening to and learning from the radio is free. And downloading and learning from Mozart is free.
I support copymonopoly, as the constitution does, for a limited time. But since an author didn't create his work in a vacuum, he shouldn't expect exclusive rights to it forever. And violation of copymonopoly which is claimed for longer than the constitutionally authorized limited time, is both legally and morally acceptable. Though the courts seem to claim otherwise.
Though others may be, I'm not advocating the elimination of copymonopoly. I'm only advocating that it be for a limited time. In fact, the constitution only authorizes copymonopoly for a limited time. Congress is not authorized to extend copyright beyond a limited time. The constitution is the law that supersedes the laws below it, so those who claim and enforce copymonopoly after long periods are actually lawbreakers.
But if the value of your work is largely derived from the ideas you learned from others, you shouldn't claim exclusive and perpetual right to your work. Copymonopoly for a limited time should suffice.
They should get paid, but only for a limited time.
Most of the ideas in the creations of most authors are taken from the work of previous authors without compensation. But I expect you wouldn't consider them freeloading rats to spite them taking the ideas of others without compensation.
To author a creation takes a lot more work than assembling a sandwich, but still, the vast majority of the labor of authoring a valuable creation was carried out even before the author was born.
An author has to add something unique to a work for it to be worth buying, and it seems like a good idea to reward that with a copymonopoly for a limited time . For the vast majority of successful works, fifteen years will probably bring plenty of profits. If a work isn't expected to make plenty of profit within fifteen years, the author will probably either be willing to do it for free, or won't do it at all. There are a few exceptions to this, such as encyclopedias. But nothing needs a 100 year copymonopoly.
Authors get the vast majority of their ideas from authors that have come before them. Without those examples to start with, authors would have to reinvent everything, and being unable to reinvent everything, their work would be garbage. For example, many musicians learn much from Mozart. But neither Mozart or his heirs get any royalties. Even Mozart learned almost everything he knew from musicians that came before him. Since most of what makes an author's work great, wasn't created by the author, there's no reason to say that an author should "own" the work exclusively. If authors still think they should "own" their works entirely, then fine, then they should just think of their work falling in to the public domain as a property tax.
Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay. If you got the ingredients to your sandwich from a charity, and you begged for someone else to assemble it for you, and somebody else invented the methods of producing the ingredients, and some volunteer soldier protected you from having your sandwich stolen by invaders, and all you did was specify the layout of the ingredients between the the bread, I still wouldn't steal it from you. But if I did I would feel a lot less guilty about it. I support copymonopoly, but only for the minimum length of time needed to incentivise people to produce it. Fifteen years, like our first congress authorized, is plenty for the vast majority of works. Even less would be appropriate for most works. To let copymonopoly extend for 150 years like current law is a violation of the constitution's requirement that copymonopoly not go on forever. More than 100 years is forever for all practical purposes and is totally unnecessary to incentivise production. It's very damaging to humanity to restrict access to all that old information.
Use your body to block the source of either the signal or the noise. Hold your WiFi radio (either your laptop or your access point) in front of you and slowly rotate while you watch the signal or noise level. When it drops, the source is probably behind you. Walk down the street if necessary and do it again to triangulate the signal.
Grandparent thought you were joking because one of the special features of python is that it doesn't use brackets for statement grouping and instead uses indenting. Thus all working python programs must be properly indented. I guess you could still complain if someone doesn't use the number of indent spaces you like for each block, but I assume your big issue is the confusion of various indenting styles rather than just the size of the indent.
Also on the Spacex updates page you can see the parachutes mounted in the interstage, implying that the entire first stage will be parachuted down. I would think the engine cluster would sink without the fuel tanks for buoyancy.
The cork is for protection during reentry. From the Spacex updates page:
What makes this one of the most important rocket launches in history is that, unlike at other rocket companies, the founder, Elon Musk, is determined to make a reusable rocket. The first stage of this rocket has been fitted with parachutes and covered with cork to protect it from the heat of reentry so that it can be recovered and studied in hopes of making them reusable in the future. The success of this launch solidifies the success of Spacex, and thereby dramaitcally increases the chances of huge benefits to humanity from much more affordable space launch. Also, the other rocket companies are probably very worried about losing all their business to Spacex now.
The data that comes from trees that give falsely low temperatures for the last 50 years.
If a tree is known to be giving falsely low temperatures, how can the data that comes from it be considered good?
Expanding coverage is a good idea, but that doesn't justify using data from trees known to give falsely low temperatures.
I actually don't have any data that says the hockey stick is wrong. I just think that the defense of bad methods like this, kills the credibility of the climate science establishment.
Vintermann wrote:
They admit that some of the trees included in their studies give falsely low temps for the last 50 years. Of course they disagree that that is a problem. But I haven't seem them give any reasonable justification for using data from trees that show falsely low temps to prove the temps were low a thousand years ago. I notice that you also haven't been able to give any justification for that.
Bad scientific method is just as bad for climate scientists as it is for oil companies.
I'd prefer that climate scientists condemn the use of known bad data. In making the hockey stick, Mann wanted to make the medieval warm period look cooler so he found some tree rings that gave falsely low temperatures for the last 50 years, and used those tree rings to show that temperatures were low a thousand years ago. If climate scientists had and would, cut Mann loose and condemn the use of known bad data, it would help their cause, but since they won't, climate scientists have no credibility.
Amazingly they make excuses for Mann. If Exxon had wanted to make the medieval warm period look really hot and had found tree rings that showed the medieval warm period was very hot, but the rings gave falsely high temps for the last 50 years, Exxon would be accused of murder. But it's OK for a climate scientist to do that.
One of their excuses is that some of the tree rings don't have the false temps for the last few decades, and still show a cool medieval warm period. But if that's true then they should just use those rings and leave out the rings that give errors. That they refuse to leave out the bad rings makes me doubt they can get the result they want without them.
Another one of their excuses is that other proxies show similar temperatures. But since almost all the climate scientists support the use of known bad tree rings, why should we trust the other studies from the same gang. That would be like Exxon giving the excuse that they can use bad tree rings because Shell Oil did a sediment study that found the same result.
If you think "has not claimed the property" was meant to be interpreted against someone in a situation like this, consider if a company had said about some lost item "That's just a non functional mockup and the CEO says it's too much trouble for us to come get it back, so you can just keep it." Would you then seriously expect the finder to take it to the police and have the police place a notice in the paper for a lost and unclaimed item? I don't think "has not claimed the property", applies after the owner is contacted and refuses to take back the item. It is no longer lost and unclaimed, it is found and abandoned. Stupidly and mistakenly, but still intentionally.