You are assuming that the progress of knowledge is linear; that what we know now vs. what we'll know 100 years from now is the equivalent of what we knew then, 100 years ago, to what we know now.
I'm making no such assumption.
My main point is that it is impossible to know how much of the universe that we don't know. I personally find it almost unthinkable that we will know when we hit the limit of knowledge until 10,000 years after that point.
Seriously. Although much of knowledge seems to be converging, there are still huge swaths of physics that we don't understand, like gravity, magnetism, superconductivity, etc. Yes, we can write down equations for these things and make some predictions, but I don't think that there is anybody out there who can explain why a moving charge creates a magnetic field, for example.
Perhaps these answers will only be intellectual curiosities, but I would be very careful about making any predictions about what is NOT possible. The universe is just too marvelous and humans are just too young as a species for me to think that we're even close to figuring it out.
It's worse than that. Putting together a powerpoint can give you the illusion that you've summarized and presented some issue clearly, when in fact, there is no content.
At work, we hired a contractor to do some initial investigation into a scientific problem for us. After spending some time gathering data, they gave us a summary powerpoint as the final report. We pushed back hard, saying instead that we wanted a written summary.
When it came back, the results had changed. By forcing them to actually put the summary of the data in writing, they were forced to spend longer thinking about the data, and through that analysis, they came up with a more accurate answer.
We indeed understand a lot today about physics and cosmology, and nothing I've seen to this time would even hint at the merest possibility of anything that could possibly make interstellar travel "cheap and affordable" my mere civilizations throughout the cosmos
Yeah, but is it really so hard to imagine that we're missing some major understanding of the universe?
Let's take a look at nuclear physics/energy. If you look back ~100 years, the idea of matter and energy being interchangeable was only theoretical. If you go back ~150 years, you would probably be laughed at if you claimed that it would be possible to power an entire city with enough electricity to blot mask the stars with light, using only a piece of metal.
I would be amazed if, in another 500 years, we don't more equally unthinkable things about the universe.
On the timescale of the universe, that's only a mere blip, if that. If we can manage to survive as a species, can you imagine what will be possible in a million years? In a few tens of thousands we went from a world where a pointed stick was the height of technology to a world where I can be anywhere on the planet within a day and where I can have a conversation with somebody on the other side of the world. That's a staggering jump if you compare it to the billions of years of history of the earth.
An alien civilization is likely to have technology that would make the differences between us and cavemen look like a minor variation.
And what makes Earth so automatically special about our resources? I mean, for carbon based life, maybe.
I would even go as far as to say probably not. Even if we assume that they are carbon-based, there is nothing to say that they would even be able to digest anything on earth.
Carbon can take many, many forms, which is why it makes such a great foundation for life. At the same time, our carbon molecules may be as indigestible to them as plastics are to us. In order to digest anything, we have very specific enzymes tailored to breaking down a relatively small class of molecules.
Think the difference between starch and cellulose. Both of these are glucose polymers, but only one of these is useful to us as an energy supply.
...unless our understanding of physics is TOTALLY messed up (*way* more flawed than we currently think pure Newtonian physics was), there's absolutely zero practical application, ever.
Yeah, but is it really so hard to imagine that we're missing some major understanding of the universe?
Let's take a look at nuclear physics/energy. If you look back ~100 years, the idea of matter and energy being interchangeable was only theoretical. If you go back ~150 years, you would probably be laughed at if you claimed that it would be possible to power an entire city with enough electricity to blot mask the stars with light, using only a piece of metal.
I would be amazed if, in another 500 years, we don't more equally unthinkable things about the universe.
On the timescale of the universe, that's only a mere blip, if that. If we can manage to survive as a species, can you imagine what will be possible in a million years? In a few tens of thousands we went from a world where a pointed stick was the height of technology to a world where I can be anywhere on the planet within a day and where I can have a conversation with somebody on the other side of the world. That's a staggering jump if you compare it to the billions of years of history of the earth.
So, be careful in claiming too strongly what isn't possible. I think the only safe prediction is that we can't even imagine what will be learned and/or invented.
How many times in history have we heard some variant of this prediction? We are still here.
True, as a global entity, we are still here, but there are lots and lots of examples of complex civilizations that used up all their natural resources and perished. If you read Jared Diamond's book Collapse, there are many examples of this.
Right now, as a global society, we are using more natural resources than ever before and that usage rate is expanding. Given that the earth is finite, we MUST level this usage rate off or we will see global war, famine, etc. on a scale never before imagined.
Anyone got any idea how this impacts our estimates of dark matter?
From TFA:
"I'll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter. As it happens, 90% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity. We know it exists... locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too. This new result doesn't affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away. They can't possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don't account for dark matter."
Give it rest guys. Your claims don't stand up to a moments dispassionate scrutiny. The interment camps were nearly seventy years ago. We've learned since then.
Let's hope you're right. Personally, I still wonder if one of the reasons that it hasn't happened since is that there hasn't been the same scale of war since then.
And as someone who went camping as a teenager, I can tell you that I still wanted to sleep until noon, wavelengths of natural light be damned.
For how long of a period of time did you go camping?
If we're talking about a couple of days, then I'm not surprised. Most people tend to walk around sleep deprived, which is why when we have free time, we're all so inclined to spend it sleeping.
I've been outdoor camping for over 2 months, living according to the natural light cycles. At first, I slept in like crazy, logging hours and hours of sleep. After a while, though, I feel into a rhythm where I went to bed at dusk, woke up at dawn, and just generally felt great.
Of course lots of exercise and low stress probably helped with that, too, but...
I know about this guys books, but I fail to see why he is going to be helpful.
Quite simply, he will be helpful because when he puts together a report, there will be one or two incredibly informative graphs that explain where the money went and how that money changed things.
By having this information in such a concise, digestible form, it will help bring transparency and accountability to the government.
One of the major issues we're having in the U.S. is that one side is saying one thing and claiming absolutely that they are right while the other side is making contradictory claims just a vocally. Getting some real, solid, hard numbers and easily understand representations of these numbers will make these kinds of useless back and forth arguments less possible.
At least that's the theory. We'll see if he can make any difference in practice.
It doesn't matter what I feel or think, it matters what Italian law is. And apparently, under Italian law, the publisher of content is responsible for it. Now, you may think that's a boneheaded law, and I would agree with you.
It may be illegal, but it is, as you admit, a stupid law. In the ideal world, this case will lead to somebody changing the law to something more reasonable.
We are entering a time where, quite frankly, the world is changing very quickly and this is yet another example. If we take a charitable view of the intent of the Italian law, we can see that the purpose is protect the privacy of the average Joe (or Giacometti in this case). That is all great, and I applaud the intent.
The trouble seems to be that the literal writing of the law is too vague and too strong and doesn't fit well with what is possible, reasonable, or even desirable with new technology. As I said, hopefully this case leads to a change in the law.
We're in an interesting time, where suddenly we can share and publish more information with more people than ever before, but we still don't have a good idea of much we should share. In this sense, it matters very much more what you think and feel and very little what the law says.
The laws are there to help create the society we want. Period. Any law that is enforced just because it is a law is a stupid law that should be thrown out.
I've been sloppy with my terminology. I was using the phrase "buying into a system" more metaphorically, as in the sense of "getting buy-in."
My point is that choosing to live in a complex society involves some trade-offs. It is clear that you don't like taxes, but my guess is that you like having roads, clean drinking water, law enforcement, fire department, sewers, etc.
The strong libertarian notion says that everybody should be able to pick and choose which ones of these you want and directly pick and choose from a competitive market. In theory, I think this idea works great, but how do you have separate sewer lines or water lines? Furthermore, do you really want to call 911 and have the operator run a credit check on you while your house burns down?
I'm straying from the health care issue, which is clearly different from the examples I've given above.
If the starting point in your discourse is that tax dollars have been taken by force, I'm not sure that you're ready for a well-reasoned discourse on any kind of government.
Don't like it? Fine. Give me an alternative to government. Seriously, I would love to hear a better solution. I want it to be a system where those in charge are accountable to the general public, there is a set mechanism for transfer of power, there is social mobility of society, respect for human rights, representation for the larger world, etc.
As far as I can see, in the end something is going to end up doing many of the same roles that government fills today, and I challenge you to tell me how this something is not in the end some kind of government, which will end up putting in some kind of "mandatory usage fees" that end up being essentially taxes.
Let's keep things in perspective. Liberty is really centered around issues like freedom of speech, social mobility, personal expression, etc.
The argument that you're missing is that even though there is some arguable loss of freedom by paying taxes to help with the health of society, you are buying into a system that a) provides you yourself with increased heathcare and b) helps keep others healthy in society.
Yes, there are a lot of potential major screw-ups in such a system, but the good news is that practically every other first world nation has such a system, which provides a lot of examples of what works and doesn't work. If the US picked a few of the better ones as models and went from there, the risks would be drastically minimized.
There is nothing in climate science that somehow makes the owner of a paper which says "PhD" magically smarter than someone without one.
What you say is technically correct, but you're missing the point.
Given that there are a lot of smart people without PhDs and a lot of idiots with them, I think that we can still be pretty safe in saying that the average PhD on a subject knows a lot more about that subject than someone without a PhD in that subject.
So, on the subject of climate change, it is reasonable to assume that those who make careers studying climate will know more about those who don't, as a general rule. Just like we would trust software engineers on a software issue more than we would trust house painters.
We are not talking about smart vs. dumb. We are talking about informed vs. uninformed opinions.
Have you tried using them yet? Looking over their site, I see a lot of pluses, but also some limitations, such as having the docs managed remotely, limit of 10 users, 500 MB of space, etc. In practice, though, do these seem to be real limitations?
I find that idea rather ridiculous. We are sentient. Do you think there is something such as being "supersentient"?
I think that I can take it for granted that humans are much smarter than dogs. Even so, dogs have some rudimentary intelligence. They learn that by listening to some human language or by standing next to the box of dog treats, they can get food. They can also figure out things like opening refrigerators, etc.
The point that the earlier post was making is that it is possible that any aliens we meet might be smarter than we are by the same factor that humans are smarter than dogs.
In fact, we have absolutely no idea how smart it is *possible* to get. It is very possible that they aliens will be so much more advanced than us that they will be indistinguishable from gods.
Of course, I have no evidence to support this claim, but personally speaking, I think it is very likely, given the relative youth of our species, that there are beings out in the universe whose intelligence makes ours look like that of rodents.
Unfortunately, a very high fraction of our foods have corn. Go to a supermarket and try to find anything in a package without corn syrup.
Now, go over to the meat and dairy aisle. Because it is cheap, cows eat corn. Almost all beef is fed on corn, and corn provides a supplement to dairy cows, which leads to all the milk that your kids are putting on their breakfast cereal (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!).
Truth be told, we're not getting rid of corn as a food source anytime soon. The only way to avoid it, as far as I can tell, is to cook most of your own food from scratch. Buy local veggies and grass fed beef.
For that to happen, we need a HUGE shift in the average American's diet.
That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.
Actually, if you read the article carefully, the probable source of toxicity is the set of new pesticides that are applied to the GM corn. In other words, the corn isn't toxic until it gets sprayed by toxic chemicals.
In my mind, the real duh moment is that if we have to engineer to corn to tolerate something toxic, why are we surprised that the residue of this toxic material is bad for rats?
The real problem I have with GW is that a 0.1 degree change from 20C is 1/2 of 1%, which is normally considered statistical "noise". Attempts to "cleanse" the data can skew the results.
Ah, where to start?
First of all, comparing 0.1 degree change to 20C is meaningless. The zero point of the Celsius scale has been arbitrarily set to the freezing point of water. If you are looking to do a percent change measure of the heat content, you'd be better off using kelvin.
That doesn't matter, though. The real mistake here is the assertion that "1% is normally considered statistical 'noise'."
The level of noise has everything to do with the precision of the instruments that you're using to measure your system.
These are two very basic Science 101 concepts, and if you're struggling to understand these, I must question your ability to understand something as vastly complicated as climate science.
In practice, little guys almost never win in patent disputes. Instead, they're bankrupted by legal bills and never see a dime of the royalties they should get. In theory, patents should help the little guy. In practice, they favor large corporations.
Are you trying to suggest that somehow, having more wealth than someone else essentially gives you greater rights?
Kidding aside, I would love to have a system that could create a true even playing field for small vs. large companies and for companies vs. single individuals where the best ideas are able to win out, with the true inventors getting their due credit. As far as I can tell, though, this vision is a fairy tale, although I would love to be proven wrong on that point.
On an unrelated note, why is quantification, proper logic, and science so hard for Slashdot users to understand?
Because, in the end, the average/. reader is human, and humans are very, very bad at separating what they believe to be true from what is demonstrably true from evidence.
I work in the biotech world, and I see this same behavior even among the R&D staff here, especially among the more junior people. Learning to think logically and critically based upon evidence turns out to be pretty hard, and I've only met a few people in my day who are really good at it.
More often, what happens is that a person hears some information or some conclusion once and decides to believe in that conclusion. After that initial decision is made, it is very, vary hard to convince someone to switch positions. Not surprisingly,/. readers are just as guilty as the average person.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm making no such assumption.
My main point is that it is impossible to know how much of the universe that we don't know. I personally find it almost unthinkable that we will know when we hit the limit of knowledge until 10,000 years after that point.
Seriously. Although much of knowledge seems to be converging, there are still huge swaths of physics that we don't understand, like gravity, magnetism, superconductivity, etc. Yes, we can write down equations for these things and make some predictions, but I don't think that there is anybody out there who can explain why a moving charge creates a magnetic field, for example.
Perhaps these answers will only be intellectual curiosities, but I would be very careful about making any predictions about what is NOT possible. The universe is just too marvelous and humans are just too young as a species for me to think that we're even close to figuring it out.
It's worse than that. Putting together a powerpoint can give you the illusion that you've summarized and presented some issue clearly, when in fact, there is no content.
At work, we hired a contractor to do some initial investigation into a scientific problem for us. After spending some time gathering data, they gave us a summary powerpoint as the final report. We pushed back hard, saying instead that we wanted a written summary.
When it came back, the results had changed. By forcing them to actually put the summary of the data in writing, they were forced to spend longer thinking about the data, and through that analysis, they came up with a more accurate answer.
Yeah, but is it really so hard to imagine that we're missing some major understanding of the universe?
Let's take a look at nuclear physics/energy. If you look back ~100 years, the idea of matter and energy being interchangeable was only theoretical. If you go back ~150 years, you would probably be laughed at if you claimed that it would be possible to power an entire city with enough electricity to blot mask the stars with light, using only a piece of metal.
I would be amazed if, in another 500 years, we don't more equally unthinkable things about the universe.
On the timescale of the universe, that's only a mere blip, if that. If we can manage to survive as a species, can you imagine what will be possible in a million years? In a few tens of thousands we went from a world where a pointed stick was the height of technology to a world where I can be anywhere on the planet within a day and where I can have a conversation with somebody on the other side of the world. That's a staggering jump if you compare it to the billions of years of history of the earth.
An alien civilization is likely to have technology that would make the differences between us and cavemen look like a minor variation.
I would even go as far as to say probably not. Even if we assume that they are carbon-based, there is nothing to say that they would even be able to digest anything on earth.
Carbon can take many, many forms, which is why it makes such a great foundation for life. At the same time, our carbon molecules may be as indigestible to them as plastics are to us. In order to digest anything, we have very specific enzymes tailored to breaking down a relatively small class of molecules.
Think the difference between starch and cellulose. Both of these are glucose polymers, but only one of these is useful to us as an energy supply.
Yeah, but is it really so hard to imagine that we're missing some major understanding of the universe?
Let's take a look at nuclear physics/energy. If you look back ~100 years, the idea of matter and energy being interchangeable was only theoretical. If you go back ~150 years, you would probably be laughed at if you claimed that it would be possible to power an entire city with enough electricity to blot mask the stars with light, using only a piece of metal.
I would be amazed if, in another 500 years, we don't more equally unthinkable things about the universe.
On the timescale of the universe, that's only a mere blip, if that. If we can manage to survive as a species, can you imagine what will be possible in a million years? In a few tens of thousands we went from a world where a pointed stick was the height of technology to a world where I can be anywhere on the planet within a day and where I can have a conversation with somebody on the other side of the world. That's a staggering jump if you compare it to the billions of years of history of the earth.
So, be careful in claiming too strongly what isn't possible. I think the only safe prediction is that we can't even imagine what will be learned and/or invented.
True, as a global entity, we are still here, but there are lots and lots of examples of complex civilizations that used up all their natural resources and perished. If you read Jared Diamond's book Collapse, there are many examples of this.
Right now, as a global society, we are using more natural resources than ever before and that usage rate is expanding. Given that the earth is finite, we MUST level this usage rate off or we will see global war, famine, etc. on a scale never before imagined.
From TFA:
"I'll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter. As it happens, 90% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity. We know it exists ... locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too. This new result doesn't affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away. They can't possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don't account for dark matter."
Let's hope you're right. Personally, I still wonder if one of the reasons that it hasn't happened since is that there hasn't been the same scale of war since then.
For how long of a period of time did you go camping?
If we're talking about a couple of days, then I'm not surprised. Most people tend to walk around sleep deprived, which is why when we have free time, we're all so inclined to spend it sleeping.
I've been outdoor camping for over 2 months, living according to the natural light cycles. At first, I slept in like crazy, logging hours and hours of sleep. After a while, though, I feel into a rhythm where I went to bed at dusk, woke up at dawn, and just generally felt great.
Of course lots of exercise and low stress probably helped with that, too, but...
Quite simply, he will be helpful because when he puts together a report, there will be one or two incredibly informative graphs that explain where the money went and how that money changed things.
By having this information in such a concise, digestible form, it will help bring transparency and accountability to the government.
One of the major issues we're having in the U.S. is that one side is saying one thing and claiming absolutely that they are right while the other side is making contradictory claims just a vocally. Getting some real, solid, hard numbers and easily understand representations of these numbers will make these kinds of useless back and forth arguments less possible.
At least that's the theory. We'll see if he can make any difference in practice.
It may be illegal, but it is, as you admit, a stupid law. In the ideal world, this case will lead to somebody changing the law to something more reasonable.
We are entering a time where, quite frankly, the world is changing very quickly and this is yet another example. If we take a charitable view of the intent of the Italian law, we can see that the purpose is protect the privacy of the average Joe (or Giacometti in this case). That is all great, and I applaud the intent.
The trouble seems to be that the literal writing of the law is too vague and too strong and doesn't fit well with what is possible, reasonable, or even desirable with new technology. As I said, hopefully this case leads to a change in the law.
We're in an interesting time, where suddenly we can share and publish more information with more people than ever before, but we still don't have a good idea of much we should share. In this sense, it matters very much more what you think and feel and very little what the law says.
The laws are there to help create the society we want. Period. Any law that is enforced just because it is a law is a stupid law that should be thrown out.
I've been sloppy with my terminology. I was using the phrase "buying into a system" more metaphorically, as in the sense of "getting buy-in."
My point is that choosing to live in a complex society involves some trade-offs. It is clear that you don't like taxes, but my guess is that you like having roads, clean drinking water, law enforcement, fire department, sewers, etc.
The strong libertarian notion says that everybody should be able to pick and choose which ones of these you want and directly pick and choose from a competitive market. In theory, I think this idea works great, but how do you have separate sewer lines or water lines? Furthermore, do you really want to call 911 and have the operator run a credit check on you while your house burns down?
I'm straying from the health care issue, which is clearly different from the examples I've given above.
If the starting point in your discourse is that tax dollars have been taken by force, I'm not sure that you're ready for a well-reasoned discourse on any kind of government.
Don't like it? Fine. Give me an alternative to government. Seriously, I would love to hear a better solution. I want it to be a system where those in charge are accountable to the general public, there is a set mechanism for transfer of power, there is social mobility of society, respect for human rights, representation for the larger world, etc.
As far as I can see, in the end something is going to end up doing many of the same roles that government fills today, and I challenge you to tell me how this something is not in the end some kind of government, which will end up putting in some kind of "mandatory usage fees" that end up being essentially taxes.
Have you also heard of the concept of the social contract?
Let's keep things in perspective. Liberty is really centered around issues like freedom of speech, social mobility, personal expression, etc.
The argument that you're missing is that even though there is some arguable loss of freedom by paying taxes to help with the health of society, you are buying into a system that a) provides you yourself with increased heathcare and b) helps keep others healthy in society.
Yes, there are a lot of potential major screw-ups in such a system, but the good news is that practically every other first world nation has such a system, which provides a lot of examples of what works and doesn't work. If the US picked a few of the better ones as models and went from there, the risks would be drastically minimized.
What you say is technically correct, but you're missing the point.
Given that there are a lot of smart people without PhDs and a lot of idiots with them, I think that we can still be pretty safe in saying that the average PhD on a subject knows a lot more about that subject than someone without a PhD in that subject.
So, on the subject of climate change, it is reasonable to assume that those who make careers studying climate will know more about those who don't, as a general rule. Just like we would trust software engineers on a software issue more than we would trust house painters.
We are not talking about smart vs. dumb. We are talking about informed vs. uninformed opinions.
Have you tried using them yet? Looking over their site, I see a lot of pluses, but also some limitations, such as having the docs managed remotely, limit of 10 users, 500 MB of space, etc. In practice, though, do these seem to be real limitations?
I think that I can take it for granted that humans are much smarter than dogs. Even so, dogs have some rudimentary intelligence. They learn that by listening to some human language or by standing next to the box of dog treats, they can get food. They can also figure out things like opening refrigerators, etc.
The point that the earlier post was making is that it is possible that any aliens we meet might be smarter than we are by the same factor that humans are smarter than dogs.
In fact, we have absolutely no idea how smart it is *possible* to get. It is very possible that they aliens will be so much more advanced than us that they will be indistinguishable from gods.
Of course, I have no evidence to support this claim, but personally speaking, I think it is very likely, given the relative youth of our species, that there are beings out in the universe whose intelligence makes ours look like that of rodents.
Oops. My bad. I really just read the abstract and skimmed the rest...
Good luck with that.
Unfortunately, a very high fraction of our foods have corn. Go to a supermarket and try to find anything in a package without corn syrup.
Now, go over to the meat and dairy aisle. Because it is cheap, cows eat corn. Almost all beef is fed on corn, and corn provides a supplement to dairy cows, which leads to all the milk that your kids are putting on their breakfast cereal (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!).
Truth be told, we're not getting rid of corn as a food source anytime soon. The only way to avoid it, as far as I can tell, is to cook most of your own food from scratch. Buy local veggies and grass fed beef.
For that to happen, we need a HUGE shift in the average American's diet.
Actually, if you read the article carefully, the probable source of toxicity is the set of new pesticides that are applied to the GM corn. In other words, the corn isn't toxic until it gets sprayed by toxic chemicals.
In my mind, the real duh moment is that if we have to engineer to corn to tolerate something toxic, why are we surprised that the residue of this toxic material is bad for rats?
Mail order brides?
Ah, where to start?
First of all, comparing 0.1 degree change to 20C is meaningless. The zero point of the Celsius scale has been arbitrarily set to the freezing point of water. If you are looking to do a percent change measure of the heat content, you'd be better off using kelvin.
That doesn't matter, though. The real mistake here is the assertion that "1% is normally considered statistical 'noise'."
The level of noise has everything to do with the precision of the instruments that you're using to measure your system.
These are two very basic Science 101 concepts, and if you're struggling to understand these, I must question your ability to understand something as vastly complicated as climate science.
Are you trying to suggest that somehow, having more wealth than someone else essentially gives you greater rights?
Kidding aside, I would love to have a system that could create a true even playing field for small vs. large companies and for companies vs. single individuals where the best ideas are able to win out, with the true inventors getting their due credit. As far as I can tell, though, this vision is a fairy tale, although I would love to be proven wrong on that point.
Perhaps this is the sound-bite that we need to start spreading?
(BTW, very nice summary of the facts. In all the global warming FUD, it is refreshing to see such a post.)
Because, in the end, the average /. reader is human, and humans are very, very bad at separating what they believe to be true from what is demonstrably true from evidence.
I work in the biotech world, and I see this same behavior even among the R&D staff here, especially among the more junior people. Learning to think logically and critically based upon evidence turns out to be pretty hard, and I've only met a few people in my day who are really good at it.
More often, what happens is that a person hears some information or some conclusion once and decides to believe in that conclusion. After that initial decision is made, it is very, vary hard to convince someone to switch positions. Not surprisingly, /. readers are just as guilty as the average person.
Stop repeating this mis-information. Please look at the data from NASA.
Look at the 5-year average. Hasn't that gone up since 1998? Also, aren't the years 2005 and 2007 both higher than 1998?
Now, explain to me how your statement is correct in any way.