If you think the info is going to be the same AP stuff at any of those locations, why _not_ boingboing? Do you have a problem with boingboing for some reason?
I'm not sure how "life begins at the moment of conception" can possibly be "based on science." The whole "when does life begin" question doesn't make sense from a purely biological point of view, or rather it kind of does, but the answer is "billions of years ago." Scientifically speaking, the sperm and the egg are already alive before conception. The whole process is continuous. From a secular point of view, there's a question about when that continuous process has produced something that we would call a human and give rights to--but that's not a scientific question.
No one reputable does think humans are "solely responsible," really. Earth's energy balance has a number of inputs and feedbacks. It's just that the human contribution to the greenhouse effect is currently strong enough to tip the system into rapid (in geologic time) warming. It's not like anyone is saying that the sun, non-anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, albedo changes, etc., aren't part of the equation. They absolutely are. But anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are the one factor in that equation that have been changing enough to explain recent warming.
Do you believe that, or are you just being a troll?
If you believe that, and you're open to being persuaded by facts, take a look at the graph at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif and tell me if you see anything in the period from 1998-present that looks inconsistent with the trend over the past 40 years or so.
Oh, bullshit. You know perfectly well that people intentionally mix up the technical use of the term "theory" with the lay use of the term in order to disparage science, especially in conversations about the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming and evolution. You also know perfectly well that when someone on the science side of the issue says "hey--in this context theory has a pretty well-defined technical meaning" they are trying to CLEAR UP the earlier intentional obfuscation, not demonstrating that they "[don't] understand that when you use "theory" it also applies to 'what best fits, in the current context.'" Your comment is trollish.
It's about as close as it gets in most sciences. It is repeatedly demonstrated fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is clearly demonstrated fact that human emissions have substantially increased atmospheric CO2, and the observed increase in global temps over the last 40 years or so can be attributed to human-produced increased CO2 production with over 90% confidence. So it's a hypothesis with an enormous amount of evidence to support it.
This person makes a statement like this: "I wonder, when the tide "reverses" because of the Maunder Minimum, will those who cried wolf admit they cried wolf, or will they use the reversal as proof that they were right?" and gets modded insightful?
This shows ignorance at best.
First, the Maunder Minimum happened back around 1700, so nothing is going to "reverse" because of the Maunder Minimum now. To be generous one may assume that the appropriately named "Obfuscant" was trying to refer to the fact that the sun is currently in an extended minimum, and that he/she (I'm betting on "he") is predicting that the current solar minimum will produce a reduction in temperature.
But if we do make that generous assumption that the poster knows what the hell he's talking about and isn't just regurgitating misunderstood talking points, the bit about using the "reversal as proof they were right" reveals this person's mendacity. OF COURSE any reduction in solar output will slow or reverse warming. The greenhouse effect works by trapping solar energy. Anyone who tries to imply that mainstream climate science neglects the importance of the sun is trying to feed you shit. Do not swallow it.
So "Obfuscant" seems to be trying to convince you that if solar output reduces, and climate scientists say "of course that slows down warming, until solar output increases again, but it does not change the fact of the additional greenhouse effect from human emissions--at best it masks it for a little while," that you should think they're changing their story and full of shit. But this is they way the story has always run: there are multiple forcings on the total energy balance of the earth--solar output is one, and the composition of the atmosphere is another--and changes in any of those forcings will affect the total balance.
Right now we're in a period of (in geological terms) very rapid change because of human intervention in one of those forcings: atmospheric composition. This (obviously, to anyone who thinks it through) does not mean that changes to other forcings will cease to have an effect. Similarly, changes to other forcings will not make atmospheric forcings go away, either.
So the only way the solar minimum will "reverse the tide" of human-induced warming is if it continues perpetually, always balancing out the warming from the greenhouse effect with less and less solar output. That is a profoundly unlikely scenario. The parent was the opposite of insightful--the parent was trying to obscure any genuine insight into what's going on.
Why are people being modded down for making verifiable statements of fact (in the case of the GGP) and providing links to the summary of the science that demonstrates those facts (in the case of the parent)? If you people have fact-based counterarguments, make them. Don't just abuse your mod points trying to hide information from other people.
You do not recall correctly. This claim, like the "recent cooling period" claim above, has been debunked repeatedly, but people just keep trotting it out. Regional warming has been observed on Mars at times in the recent past (without net global warming), and transient global warming when there was a big dust storm. But there has not been change on Mars "relatively consistent with what we see on Earth."
Some of the regional changes on Mars were observable primarily through watching ice cover dissipate around the Martian south pole. As a group of NASA climate scientists has pointed out, it is somewhat ironic that people who don't want to believe in global warming on Earth seem to be willing take ice cover changes in the Martian south pole as definitive evidence of a global phenomenon while simultaneously being unpersuaded by ice cover reduction on earth everywhere BUT the south pole (also backed up by temperature observations on Earth, of course).
Well, OK, but your "'intelligent' design" bears almost no resemblance to "Intelligent Design (TM)." Selective breeding, no matter how methodical, is just not at all like saying that some hypothetical entity engineered all life on earth from scratch. If the original poster meant that differences among dog breeds are due to "intelligent" design in the sense you describe, then he/she was correct but making a trivial point that says nothing useful about "Intelligent Design (TM)."
But high-fructose corn syrup is about half glucose and about half fructose, just like regular table sugar. The fact that it is derived from corn doesn't magically make it evil somehow. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of farm subsidies are ill conceived, but I haven't seen any evidence that HFCS is any worse for you than any other common type of sugar (and I've looked at evidence, because I've had this conversation with a friend who will believe any health fad and pay out the wazoo for expensive products free from demonized-compound X).
You say it gets put into things that wouldn't otherwise be sweetened--if that's happening A LOT (which seems doubtful; in how many cases would the economics work? "If this was sweeter, it would sell more, not enough more to justify buying sucrose, but enough more to justify buying HFCS") then maybe HFCS and corn subsidies are at issue here. But if you're blaming this on HFCS as a substitute for other common kinds of sugar, I think that's just fad like the vaccines-cause-autism thing.
Wait a sec there, bud. So you seem to be saying "I don't trust these guys" in one breath, and "I can't be bothered to expend the effort to actually understand what's going on" in the next. The sensor error, beginning in January, compromised ONE of several overlapping datasets for a brief period of time. And it has been caught. And the record from non-problematic instruments will be used to provide the data for the archives. No problems. But you will just dismiss an ENTIRE FIELD OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY, with a huge number of independent lines of evidence leading to the same conclusions, because "if this data was wrong, it all could be wrong?" That's not just ignorance, and that's not just willful ignorance, that's militant willful ignorance.
but I guess I can't. I personally think Olbermann gets it right more often than O'Reilly and Hannity (and of course Limbaugh), but I also think that's more because "reality has a well-known liberal bias" as Steven Colbert famously said than because of any responsible action on Olbermann's part. He really does seem to react by reflex, and manufacture umbrage at every opportunity.
I'm pretty sure that was the parent's point. Maybe a sarcasm tag would have helped you, but I thought the concluding line made it pretty clear: "Sometimes the ugly needs to be seen."
I'd never vote for your crazy ass. The abandonment of the rule of law is causing more harm to this country than al Qaeda ever has, or probably ever could. And FDR and Lincoln were dealing with much, much, much larger threats.
After everything else we've seen out of Bush's administration, you think the most parsimonious explanation for this story is that this guy's going public with a made-up story in order to get some sort of revenge, and no wrongdoing ever took place? Applying Ockham's Razor doesn't mean forgetting everything you know about the context and just picking a convenient story.
Gambling and porn addictions appear to involve the same dopamine-mediated reward pathways in the brain as, e.g., heroin addiction. Google "porn addiction," "sex addiction," or "gambling addiction" along with "dopamine" for many refs, do it in google scholar for scientific articles. There's even some indication of physical withdrawal symptoms.
How many people play violent video games?
How many school shootings have happened?
There is a very, very low ceiling on the possible effect size there. Even if video games were a causal factor in 100% of school shootings, it's still the case that in 99.999etc.% of cases, video games do not cause people to shoot up their schools.
One reason people can't (or at least shouldn't) "just accept" that "they don't think the same and have different interests" is that it is for the most part demonstrably untrue. For evidence, please see Janet S. Hyde's meta-analyses of thousands of sex/gender difference studies. Sometimes you can find mean differences that meet statistical significance, but when you look at the effect sizes, it becomes clear that the differences are too small to have practical significance. The book "Same Difference" by Ros Barnett (and someone else whose name escapes me at the moment) is good, too. I did my master's research on percieved and actual gender differences in infidelity in dating relationships. The bottom line--men cheat a little bit more often than women...but both men and women THINK that men cheat a LOT more than women. My point in bringing this up is that I believe the same phenomenon goes on in a lot of domains. Some small difference may actually be observable between the sexes. But people's (misguided) PERCEPTION is that there are these huge, Mars-vs-Venus differences; that men and women are in non-overlapping distributions. And they're just not. There's plenty of evidence.
Your point is taken but the sentence "Muslims do not negotiate with Jews, they view them as subhumans fit only for extermination" is a dangerous overgeneralization. I don't know how many Muslims actually do view Jews that way, but I know for certain it's not all of them, and in my limited and mostly US-bound experience it's virtually none of them. Stereotypes like this can lead to exactly the sort of behavior you're describing; it invites the dehumanization of Muslims.
A Kentucky newspaper is reporting that this case has not yet even been completed:
Court hearing over gambling Web site names delayed
The Associated Press
FRANKFORT, Ky. --
A court hearing on whether the state of Kentucky can gain control of the names of more than 140 online gambling Web site names has been delayed.
Gov. Steve Beshear, who supports legal casino gambling, is looking to block Kentuckians' access to 141 online Web sites. Some are among the most popular gambling sites for online players in the United States.
A forfeiture hearing before Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate has been continued until Friday at 3:30 p.m.
Home to the Kentucky Derby, the state already allows legal wagering on horse races, a lottery and in bingo halls. But Beshear says Kentuckians are wagering millions on illegal and unregulated gambling.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think the info is going to be the same AP stuff at any of those locations, why _not_ boingboing? Do you have a problem with boingboing for some reason?
I'm not sure how "life begins at the moment of conception" can possibly be "based on science." The whole "when does life begin" question doesn't make sense from a purely biological point of view, or rather it kind of does, but the answer is "billions of years ago." Scientifically speaking, the sperm and the egg are already alive before conception. The whole process is continuous. From a secular point of view, there's a question about when that continuous process has produced something that we would call a human and give rights to--but that's not a scientific question.
No one reputable does think humans are "solely responsible," really. Earth's energy balance has a number of inputs and feedbacks. It's just that the human contribution to the greenhouse effect is currently strong enough to tip the system into rapid (in geologic time) warming. It's not like anyone is saying that the sun, non-anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, albedo changes, etc., aren't part of the equation. They absolutely are. But anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are the one factor in that equation that have been changing enough to explain recent warming.
Do you believe that, or are you just being a troll? If you believe that, and you're open to being persuaded by facts, take a look at the graph at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif and tell me if you see anything in the period from 1998-present that looks inconsistent with the trend over the past 40 years or so.
Oh, bullshit. You know perfectly well that people intentionally mix up the technical use of the term "theory" with the lay use of the term in order to disparage science, especially in conversations about the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming and evolution. You also know perfectly well that when someone on the science side of the issue says "hey--in this context theory has a pretty well-defined technical meaning" they are trying to CLEAR UP the earlier intentional obfuscation, not demonstrating that they "[don't] understand that when you use "theory" it also applies to 'what best fits, in the current context.'" Your comment is trollish.
It's about as close as it gets in most sciences. It is repeatedly demonstrated fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is clearly demonstrated fact that human emissions have substantially increased atmospheric CO2, and the observed increase in global temps over the last 40 years or so can be attributed to human-produced increased CO2 production with over 90% confidence. So it's a hypothesis with an enormous amount of evidence to support it.
This person makes a statement like this: "I wonder, when the tide "reverses" because of the Maunder Minimum, will those who cried wolf admit they cried wolf, or will they use the reversal as proof that they were right?" and gets modded insightful? This shows ignorance at best. First, the Maunder Minimum happened back around 1700, so nothing is going to "reverse" because of the Maunder Minimum now. To be generous one may assume that the appropriately named "Obfuscant" was trying to refer to the fact that the sun is currently in an extended minimum, and that he/she (I'm betting on "he") is predicting that the current solar minimum will produce a reduction in temperature. But if we do make that generous assumption that the poster knows what the hell he's talking about and isn't just regurgitating misunderstood talking points, the bit about using the "reversal as proof they were right" reveals this person's mendacity. OF COURSE any reduction in solar output will slow or reverse warming. The greenhouse effect works by trapping solar energy. Anyone who tries to imply that mainstream climate science neglects the importance of the sun is trying to feed you shit. Do not swallow it. So "Obfuscant" seems to be trying to convince you that if solar output reduces, and climate scientists say "of course that slows down warming, until solar output increases again, but it does not change the fact of the additional greenhouse effect from human emissions--at best it masks it for a little while," that you should think they're changing their story and full of shit. But this is they way the story has always run: there are multiple forcings on the total energy balance of the earth--solar output is one, and the composition of the atmosphere is another--and changes in any of those forcings will affect the total balance. Right now we're in a period of (in geological terms) very rapid change because of human intervention in one of those forcings: atmospheric composition. This (obviously, to anyone who thinks it through) does not mean that changes to other forcings will cease to have an effect. Similarly, changes to other forcings will not make atmospheric forcings go away, either. So the only way the solar minimum will "reverse the tide" of human-induced warming is if it continues perpetually, always balancing out the warming from the greenhouse effect with less and less solar output. That is a profoundly unlikely scenario. The parent was the opposite of insightful--the parent was trying to obscure any genuine insight into what's going on.
Why are people being modded down for making verifiable statements of fact (in the case of the GGP) and providing links to the summary of the science that demonstrates those facts (in the case of the parent)? If you people have fact-based counterarguments, make them. Don't just abuse your mod points trying to hide information from other people.
You do not recall correctly. This claim, like the "recent cooling period" claim above, has been debunked repeatedly, but people just keep trotting it out. Regional warming has been observed on Mars at times in the recent past (without net global warming), and transient global warming when there was a big dust storm. But there has not been change on Mars "relatively consistent with what we see on Earth." Some of the regional changes on Mars were observable primarily through watching ice cover dissipate around the Martian south pole. As a group of NASA climate scientists has pointed out, it is somewhat ironic that people who don't want to believe in global warming on Earth seem to be willing take ice cover changes in the Martian south pole as definitive evidence of a global phenomenon while simultaneously being unpersuaded by ice cover reduction on earth everywhere BUT the south pole (also backed up by temperature observations on Earth, of course).
Were you trying to refute the GP's sig line? At best, your response makes atheism out to be a hobby. :)
Well, OK, but your "'intelligent' design" bears almost no resemblance to "Intelligent Design (TM)." Selective breeding, no matter how methodical, is just not at all like saying that some hypothetical entity engineered all life on earth from scratch. If the original poster meant that differences among dog breeds are due to "intelligent" design in the sense you describe, then he/she was correct but making a trivial point that says nothing useful about "Intelligent Design (TM)."
But high-fructose corn syrup is about half glucose and about half fructose, just like regular table sugar. The fact that it is derived from corn doesn't magically make it evil somehow. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of farm subsidies are ill conceived, but I haven't seen any evidence that HFCS is any worse for you than any other common type of sugar (and I've looked at evidence, because I've had this conversation with a friend who will believe any health fad and pay out the wazoo for expensive products free from demonized-compound X). You say it gets put into things that wouldn't otherwise be sweetened--if that's happening A LOT (which seems doubtful; in how many cases would the economics work? "If this was sweeter, it would sell more, not enough more to justify buying sucrose, but enough more to justify buying HFCS") then maybe HFCS and corn subsidies are at issue here. But if you're blaming this on HFCS as a substitute for other common kinds of sugar, I think that's just fad like the vaccines-cause-autism thing.
I thought the average person was a hardcore gamer with no, uh, whatever that thing you said was. All my guild-mates are that way.
Wait a sec there, bud. So you seem to be saying "I don't trust these guys" in one breath, and "I can't be bothered to expend the effort to actually understand what's going on" in the next. The sensor error, beginning in January, compromised ONE of several overlapping datasets for a brief period of time. And it has been caught. And the record from non-problematic instruments will be used to provide the data for the archives. No problems. But you will just dismiss an ENTIRE FIELD OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY, with a huge number of independent lines of evidence leading to the same conclusions, because "if this data was wrong, it all could be wrong?" That's not just ignorance, and that's not just willful ignorance, that's militant willful ignorance.
but I guess I can't. I personally think Olbermann gets it right more often than O'Reilly and Hannity (and of course Limbaugh), but I also think that's more because "reality has a well-known liberal bias" as Steven Colbert famously said than because of any responsible action on Olbermann's part. He really does seem to react by reflex, and manufacture umbrage at every opportunity.
I'm pretty sure that was the parent's point. Maybe a sarcasm tag would have helped you, but I thought the concluding line made it pretty clear: "Sometimes the ugly needs to be seen."
Yes, it's clearly proof of whatever whacked out conspiracy theory Rush Limbaugh shat into your earhole yesterday.
NONE of your GODDAMNED BUSINESS!!!! er, I mean, nothing.
I'd never vote for your crazy ass. The abandonment of the rule of law is causing more harm to this country than al Qaeda ever has, or probably ever could. And FDR and Lincoln were dealing with much, much, much larger threats.
After everything else we've seen out of Bush's administration, you think the most parsimonious explanation for this story is that this guy's going public with a made-up story in order to get some sort of revenge, and no wrongdoing ever took place? Applying Ockham's Razor doesn't mean forgetting everything you know about the context and just picking a convenient story.
Gambling and porn addictions appear to involve the same dopamine-mediated reward pathways in the brain as, e.g., heroin addiction. Google "porn addiction," "sex addiction," or "gambling addiction" along with "dopamine" for many refs, do it in google scholar for scientific articles. There's even some indication of physical withdrawal symptoms.
How many people play violent video games? How many school shootings have happened? There is a very, very low ceiling on the possible effect size there. Even if video games were a causal factor in 100% of school shootings, it's still the case that in 99.999etc.% of cases, video games do not cause people to shoot up their schools.
One reason people can't (or at least shouldn't) "just accept" that "they don't think the same and have different interests" is that it is for the most part demonstrably untrue. For evidence, please see Janet S. Hyde's meta-analyses of thousands of sex/gender difference studies. Sometimes you can find mean differences that meet statistical significance, but when you look at the effect sizes, it becomes clear that the differences are too small to have practical significance. The book "Same Difference" by Ros Barnett (and someone else whose name escapes me at the moment) is good, too. I did my master's research on percieved and actual gender differences in infidelity in dating relationships. The bottom line--men cheat a little bit more often than women...but both men and women THINK that men cheat a LOT more than women. My point in bringing this up is that I believe the same phenomenon goes on in a lot of domains. Some small difference may actually be observable between the sexes. But people's (misguided) PERCEPTION is that there are these huge, Mars-vs-Venus differences; that men and women are in non-overlapping distributions. And they're just not. There's plenty of evidence.
Your point is taken but the sentence "Muslims do not negotiate with Jews, they view them as subhumans fit only for extermination" is a dangerous overgeneralization. I don't know how many Muslims actually do view Jews that way, but I know for certain it's not all of them, and in my limited and mostly US-bound experience it's virtually none of them. Stereotypes like this can lead to exactly the sort of behavior you're describing; it invites the dehumanization of Muslims.
A Kentucky newspaper is reporting that this case has not yet even been completed: Court hearing over gambling Web site names delayed The Associated Press FRANKFORT, Ky. -- A court hearing on whether the state of Kentucky can gain control of the names of more than 140 online gambling Web site names has been delayed. Gov. Steve Beshear, who supports legal casino gambling, is looking to block Kentuckians' access to 141 online Web sites. Some are among the most popular gambling sites for online players in the United States. A forfeiture hearing before Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate has been continued until Friday at 3:30 p.m. Home to the Kentucky Derby, the state already allows legal wagering on horse races, a lottery and in bingo halls. But Beshear says Kentuckians are wagering millions on illegal and unregulated gambling.