The difference between "denier" and "denialist" is that a "denier" just some who denies, but the construct "denialist" from "denial" + "ist" is meant to convey someone who is an ideological advocate of denial, which is exactly what I meant. Your comparison of economic predictions and weather predictions to climate predictions are indicative of someone who has dismissed the other side's argument without first comprehending it. That's beyond "denying" it's what one might term, "denialism".
On the very simple question "how much temperature increase for a doubling of the CO2 emissions", none of the so called "climatologists" are capable enough to give a valid, definitive answer.
Because that question assumes that there is some direct and immediate relationship between CO2 emissions and average temperature, but there isn't. The model has to account for all kinds of delayed responses and positive and negative feedback loops. Those are all accounted for in the model because climatologists aren't stupid.
Predictions for the climate in one century are really foolish, and that nobody is capable of doing that, simply because there is too many parameters
False. It has already been done. You don't seem to grasp exactly what a "model" is in this context. There are thousands and thousands of years of proxy data for a myriad of various variables such as global temperature, solar output, CO2 levels, and many more. The scientific hypothesis is that all of those parameters influence (and may be influenced by) other parameters in a way that can be described by a mathematical model. Such a model has been constructed, which accurately predicts the temperature response to changes in the other variables no matter where in the thousands and thousands of years that you try it. This means there are not too many variables to make that prediction. The fact that the model, when applied over that last couple millenia and more, fits, means precisely that how the variables interact is known to a very high degree.
In other words, if they had this in 1200AD, they could have predicted the global temperature in 1300AD with a margin of error well within satisfactory ranges and they'd have been right. Ditto for 1400AD, 1500AD, 1600AD, etc. To say such a prediction is impossible is, therefore, simply a false statement made by someone who doesn't appear to bother to understand the science behind that which he's ridiculing.
If you are offended that I implied that you must be uneducated on these matters, consider that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm assuming ignorance instead of malevolence. If you aren't uneducated, the only other option seems to be "lying sack of shit".
So, they realize that the sun output is very important, but then they still think that it's not important... Very cleaver indeed!
At no time did anything I said even resemble anything in your above paraphrase. Let me try to explain it one more time. The way terrestrial temperature responds to solar output is well known because of past data. Given the sun and some other variables in the past, you could calculate what terrestrial temperature "should" be and then measure the temperature and that is exactly what it would be. This was true until significant human emissions began, after which the temperature was higher than what the old model said it "should" be. However, if you add "human emissions" as one of the variables, then the models fit perfectly again.
Therefore: humans are causing global warming over and above solar output fluctuations. If the sun gives us a temporary break, it won't change the fact that we're still causing global climate change.
Your heroic efforts to misunderstand any attempt to educate you is evidence that your conclusions are ideological rather than based on reason. I suspect you're just trolling, but if you really are interested in reasoning your way to the truth, just a small amount of googling and an honest attempt to understand the reasoning of others will go a long way.
Climate change denialists' use of the tired old "weather" meme, after it has been debunked ad nauseum, is why denialists have no credibility with educated people and no one of any reputation takes them seriously. The meme has been thoroughly dismantled numerous times but that doesn't stop the uneducated from resurrecting it at every opportunity.
Economies and climates share about nothing in common. If you've based your rejection of climatologist's predictions on the inability of economists to predict, then you're possibly stupider than I imagined. This is why, "frankly", nobody really gives a shit what you "buy" or not - your uninformed opinion isn't worth fuck.
Oh, wait, I remember, because that's stupid. People can't eat money. High tech infrastructure is how this planet has been able to grow to nearly 7 billion people. Not spending a trillion to save infrastructure worth hundreds of times that is not just foolish, it's really fucking insanely foolish.
Sacrificing the next generation for the comfort of the previous generation seems far more evil to me.
There are better ways to keep people from starving than dumping money on them. Even if you can feed them in the short term by destroying the economy and infrastructure that is the only thing capable of feeding them long term is like killing the golden goose.
I didn't say climatologists ignore use the sun in their predictions, I said quite the opposite. I said all their predictions are very contingent on solar output. They say that if solar output is X, terrestrial termperature response will be Y. If X is completely outside the expected range, it wouldn't make their model wrong and wouldn't mean humans weren't causing global warming.
A couple degrees of temperature rising can inundate a coastal city. That's not going to be "optimal". Stopping global warming was never about keeping summers from getting a little too uncomfortable. It's about global catastrophe caused by ecological and environmental upheaval.
The ability to predict solar activity has nothing to do with climatologists. Climatologists don't predict what the sun will do, they look at past solar activity and past temperatures and past human activity and a whole host of other data and develop models that explain what the climate will do based on what any of the others will do. (e.g. if the solar activity is X, the earth's temperature will respond Y, etc).
If the sun goes into an unexpectedly deep minimum, that doesn't mean climatologists "don't have everything figured out" because it has nothing to do with climatologists.
If the Sun does cool and earth does cool as a result, exactly according to climatologist models, I predict that the climate change deniers will still not notice.
Wouldn't it be easier to just project a big infrared "COUNTERFEIT" or "VOID" across the thing to be protected? Then it works for all cameras (that pick up IR which is all small cameras)
This almost certainly has something to do with the Salem Hypothesis.
Basically if your degree is in engineering, you tend to see design where none exists. Since terrorism is a market cornered by the religious fundamentalists, this is not at all surprising.
Mod parent up. I'm absolutely positive this has a large part in this. In particular there's a fundamental difference between "thinking like an engineer" and "thinking like a scientists". Scientists tend to be detectives, deciphering observations to interpret reality. Engineers, in contrast tend to try to make reality conform to their wishes (not a bad skill). The problem seems to be that engineers statistically tend to see design where it doesn't exist more than their scientist counterparts.
As if it is possible to worship anything except for an interpretation of him. Perhaps there is an accurate interpretation and there are millions of inaccurate interpretations, but they're all interpretations. It's very possible none are "accurate" if God doesn't really exist.
How can it be said they are worshiping the same God if they are worshiping different interpretations of him....especially when these are not trivial differences.
It isn't like all of these God's are real, here, and there's a Christian God vs a Muslim God vs a Jewish God. If any of these three is real, the others can't be. And no matter which is real, he's a hateful fuck. (Either that or the people who first wrote about him badly misunderstood him).
I agree. Burning books sends the wrong signal - makes it seem like they're afraid of what's in them. If they wanted to go for "we think your religion is stupid" they should just all get together and draw Mohammad or something.
I'm not at all sure that the government should be regulating in the internet at this picky level of detail.
That isn't internet regulation any more than saying child porn over email is illegal. What would be illegal isn't the use of the cookies but the violation of the privacy. So it would regulating commerce, which governments should be doing.
But with USB 3.0, even though the plug looks the same, the cable has extra wires. Because of this, it will not work in a 2.0 port. The edge of a USB 3.0 plug is colored blue so you know it’s a 3.0.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between "denier" and "denialist" is that a "denier" just some who denies, but the construct "denialist" from "denial" + "ist" is meant to convey someone who is an ideological advocate of denial, which is exactly what I meant. Your comparison of economic predictions and weather predictions to climate predictions are indicative of someone who has dismissed the other side's argument without first comprehending it. That's beyond "denying" it's what one might term, "denialism".
On the very simple question "how much temperature increase for a doubling of the CO2 emissions", none of the so called "climatologists" are capable enough to give a valid, definitive answer.
Because that question assumes that there is some direct and immediate relationship between CO2 emissions and average temperature, but there isn't. The model has to account for all kinds of delayed responses and positive and negative feedback loops. Those are all accounted for in the model because climatologists aren't stupid.
Predictions for the climate in one century are really foolish, and that nobody is capable of doing that, simply because there is too many parameters
False. It has already been done. You don't seem to grasp exactly what a "model" is in this context. There are thousands and thousands of years of proxy data for a myriad of various variables such as global temperature, solar output, CO2 levels, and many more. The scientific hypothesis is that all of those parameters influence (and may be influenced by) other parameters in a way that can be described by a mathematical model. Such a model has been constructed, which accurately predicts the temperature response to changes in the other variables no matter where in the thousands and thousands of years that you try it. This means there are not too many variables to make that prediction. The fact that the model, when applied over that last couple millenia and more, fits, means precisely that how the variables interact is known to a very high degree.
In other words, if they had this in 1200AD, they could have predicted the global temperature in 1300AD with a margin of error well within satisfactory ranges and they'd have been right. Ditto for 1400AD, 1500AD, 1600AD, etc. To say such a prediction is impossible is, therefore, simply a false statement made by someone who doesn't appear to bother to understand the science behind that which he's ridiculing.
If you are offended that I implied that you must be uneducated on these matters, consider that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm assuming ignorance instead of malevolence. If you aren't uneducated, the only other option seems to be "lying sack of shit".
So, they realize that the sun output is very important, but then they still think that it's not important... Very cleaver indeed!
At no time did anything I said even resemble anything in your above paraphrase. Let me try to explain it one more time. The way terrestrial temperature responds to solar output is well known because of past data. Given the sun and some other variables in the past, you could calculate what terrestrial temperature "should" be and then measure the temperature and that is exactly what it would be. This was true until significant human emissions began, after which the temperature was higher than what the old model said it "should" be. However, if you add "human emissions" as one of the variables, then the models fit perfectly again.
Therefore: humans are causing global warming over and above solar output fluctuations. If the sun gives us a temporary break, it won't change the fact that we're still causing global climate change.
Your heroic efforts to misunderstand any attempt to educate you is evidence that your conclusions are ideological rather than based on reason. I suspect you're just trolling, but if you really are interested in reasoning your way to the truth, just a small amount of googling and an honest attempt to understand the reasoning of others will go a long way.
Climate change denialists' use of the tired old "weather" meme, after it has been debunked ad nauseum, is why denialists have no credibility with educated people and no one of any reputation takes them seriously. The meme has been thoroughly dismantled numerous times but that doesn't stop the uneducated from resurrecting it at every opportunity.
Economies and climates share about nothing in common. If you've based your rejection of climatologist's predictions on the inability of economists to predict, then you're possibly stupider than I imagined. This is why, "frankly", nobody really gives a shit what you "buy" or not - your uninformed opinion isn't worth fuck.
You're right. Why didn't I think of that?
Oh, wait, I remember, because that's stupid. People can't eat money. High tech infrastructure is how this planet has been able to grow to nearly 7 billion people. Not spending a trillion to save infrastructure worth hundreds of times that is not just foolish, it's really fucking insanely foolish.
Sacrificing the next generation for the comfort of the previous generation seems far more evil to me.
There are better ways to keep people from starving than dumping money on them. Even if you can feed them in the short term by destroying the economy and infrastructure that is the only thing capable of feeding them long term is like killing the golden goose.
I didn't say climatologists ignore use the sun in their predictions, I said quite the opposite. I said all their predictions are very contingent on solar output. They say that if solar output is X, terrestrial termperature response will be Y. If X is completely outside the expected range, it wouldn't make their model wrong and wouldn't mean humans weren't causing global warming.
A couple degrees of temperature rising can inundate a coastal city. That's not going to be "optimal". Stopping global warming was never about keeping summers from getting a little too uncomfortable. It's about global catastrophe caused by ecological and environmental upheaval.
False.
The ability to predict solar activity has nothing to do with climatologists. Climatologists don't predict what the sun will do, they look at past solar activity and past temperatures and past human activity and a whole host of other data and develop models that explain what the climate will do based on what any of the others will do. (e.g. if the solar activity is X, the earth's temperature will respond Y, etc).
If the sun goes into an unexpectedly deep minimum, that doesn't mean climatologists "don't have everything figured out" because it has nothing to do with climatologists.
If the Sun does cool and earth does cool as a result, exactly according to climatologist models, I predict that the climate change deniers will still not notice.
Wouldn't it be easier to just project a big infrared "COUNTERFEIT" or "VOID" across the thing to be protected? Then it works for all cameras (that pick up IR which is all small cameras)
I want a "we found fucking life" article
I'd be fine even if the life were asexual.
I can't decide if I should care whether this was peer reviewed or not.
This almost certainly has something to do with the Salem Hypothesis.
Basically if your degree is in engineering, you tend to see design where none exists. Since terrorism is a market cornered by the religious fundamentalists, this is not at all surprising.
Mod parent up. I'm absolutely positive this has a large part in this. In particular there's a fundamental difference between "thinking like an engineer" and "thinking like a scientists". Scientists tend to be detectives, deciphering observations to interpret reality. Engineers, in contrast tend to try to make reality conform to their wishes (not a bad skill). The problem seems to be that engineers statistically tend to see design where it doesn't exist more than their scientist counterparts.
Now we'll have drivers for wi-fi that are just as flawless as those ATI drivers we have now. Yay.
As if it is possible to worship anything except for an interpretation of him. Perhaps there is an accurate interpretation and there are millions of inaccurate interpretations, but they're all interpretations. It's very possible none are "accurate" if God doesn't really exist.
If the exploit affects spelling, you have cause for concern
How can it be said they are worshiping the same God if they are worshiping different interpretations of him. ...especially when these are not trivial differences.
Your semantics are no good here.
The GP clearly meant "IAP" because he was talking about common carrier which doesn't apply to webhosting.
Mod parent -1 pedantic fuck
Your semantics are no good here.
The GP clearly meant "IAP" because he was talking about common carrier which doesn't apply to webhosting.
Mod parent -1 pedantic fuck.
And when the cable company says you can't use our lines for that... the guantlet for net neutrality will be thrown also.
(or when the cable company says, "look we have tv over the internet now too" like they did with phone service)
Intolerance is something I just won't tolerate.
Umm, their God *is* a hateful fuck like that.
It isn't like all of these God's are real, here, and there's a Christian God vs a Muslim God vs a Jewish God. If any of these three is real, the others can't be. And no matter which is real, he's a hateful fuck. (Either that or the people who first wrote about him badly misunderstood him).
I agree. Burning books sends the wrong signal - makes it seem like they're afraid of what's in them. If they wanted to go for "we think your religion is stupid" they should just all get together and draw Mohammad or something.
Rackspace != ISP.
Rackspace is a website hosting company.
That isn't internet regulation any more than saying child porn over email is illegal. What would be illegal isn't the use of the cookies but the violation of the privacy. So it would regulating commerce, which governments should be doing.
I think there's some confusion here. I was merely making a plea that the blind need love too.
Fuck the blind!