So, they were guilty? And the eight investigations were all wrong?
I told you, it was a whitewash, easily explained by the political climate around global warming. At the minimum, Phil Jones should have been fired and charged for violating a Freedom of Information request, and telling other people to delete their email. Does this sound like transparent science to you? How science should be done by a top member in their field?
Oh, that does not seem to be the case.
I like how you keep quoting Wikipedia, which has its own bias and relies on biased sources, instead of delving into theactual issues surrounding the graph.
Did you watch the video I linked to by the Berkeley science for an alternative view? Why don't you engage with the actual argument being made?
Except it did. I've looked into it in detail, read both sides of the argument, and everything I said is true.
Pointing to it as an example of the "dishonesty" of the vast majority of researchers is pretty disingenuous.
The researchers involved were heavy hitters and proponents of the "hockey stick", the widely promulgated graph of global warming.
"The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them."
I tried looking up the citation for Wikipedia's claim here, and the direct link did not work. I would like to see an exact quote from the reference that backs up this claim.
Regardless, there's a political climate around propping up the threat of global warming, and a lot of whitewashing going around. Rather than rely on Wikipedia or summaries, I looked at primary sources. I looked at the graphs, the emails, and what, exactly, "hide the decline" referred to.
I looked at how Phil Jones told people to delete email. How he said would rather delete data than give it to climate skeptics. At how the internal debates regarding the uncertainties of climate science was not communicated to the wider public. Quite the opposite, it was actively hidden.
The above story is more-or-less the Average Person when it comes to science. What's worse: take the average person and add religion? It's even worse, they not only believe most science is bullshit intended to trick them, they believe science is EVIL and Satanic and they're trying to mislead them away from their God. That's the sort of icecream-headache-causing nonsense we're fighting against here.
What's even worse are the people who think they are smarter than everybody else, that treat scientists as the new priesthood class, but are wearing their own intellectual blinders.
Climategate showed scientists were willing to chop off decades worth of proxy data because it didn't match the recent warming. That they were willing to deceitfully present the science to the wider public to hide such discrepancies. That they were willing to delete email and data to prevent transparency.
We've seen the wider press be willing to misrepresent the science, creating false narratives about polar bears, for example. We keep hearing every so many years how we have to *act now* or it will be too late, and then get the alarmist message repeated. Alarmism is the mantra of climate science journalism.
How often do we get a reasoned and balanced discussion on climate change? Do we balance the benefits of predicted climate change versus the negative? Do we quantify the cost of drastic carbon reduction, both in human lives and monetarily? Is this a 100-year problem that will be better served tackling it with tomorrow's technology and economy?
The manned moon missions ate up ungodly amounts of funding and did very little science in return. It was awe inspiring, to be sure, but we need to be smart with our spending. We already spend plenty on space telescopes, probes, and landers.
o Carbon powers the world's economy. Is the cost of reducing carbon emissions worse than the cost of hypothesized problems?
o We're already changing the planet in many other ways. Just look at pictures of Earth from space. Environmentalists and world-government authoritarians aren't going to be happy until we're all living under worldwide socialism (UN agenda 2030).
The "media" doesn't have an army, or law enforcement powers, or the ability to make laws.
But they do have the ability to shape public opinion and pressure politicians.
Also, Fox News is as much "establishment media" as any of the other networks.
Yes, they are the sole "conservative" network, and even they can be antagonistic to Trump at times. The dopes even sided with CNN over the Acosta affair.
You should have used "cuckservative" in your first comment so I would have known not to waste any time on you.
You were wasting time to begin with by equating Zero Hedge to Daily Stormer.
I just went over to Zerohedge and found a front page story about Facebook. You wouldn't think that would be fertile ground for neo-nazis, but let's look at some of the highest-rated comments:
Huh, imagine that, anti-Jewish comments on the Internet on a story about a company where the founder and next-highest position are both Jews, and the company is one of the most powerful Internet companies in the world. You'll find the same stuff in YouTube comments. Yet you completely ignore the articles in favor of the comments.
Everything you've said here is bullshit, but this one takes the cake.
I quoted headlines, while you spout bullshit neo-Nazi smear equivalencies.
Every single branch of government in the United States is currently being run by pro-Trump Republicans.
So you're just going to deny that the establishment media is against Trump? That cuckservatives like Paul Ryan, John McCain, or Jeff Flake weren't against him on issues like immigration? That the entire Trump-Russia collusion witch hunt wasn't engineered by deep state operatives in the DoJ, the FBI, and the DNC/Clinton campaign? That there aren't never-Trumpers and "resistance" people within his own administration? That Trump essentially engaged in a hostile takeover of the Republican party?
I did say sorta anti-establishment, because while he goes against the grain on some issues, on many others he's just more of the same.
You will find a lot more anti-semitic and racist stuff on Zerohedge than you will on Daily Stormer.
Why do you post such obvious bullshit when anybody can check for themselves?
Here, do this simple test: Go to Zerohedge right now.
Top 6 headlines:
"White House To Pull Acosta's Pass Again After Temporary Court Order Expires"
"One Less Rate-Hike Doesn't Trump A Trade War"
"Rock And A Hard Place? EU Backs Limited Iran Sanctions Over Paris Bomb Plot"
"Morgan Stanley Calls It: "We Are In A Bear Market""
"Senate Democrats Sue To Remove Whitaker As Acting AG"
"Kunstler: Welcome To GenderWorld"
Daily Stormer:
"Tfw There's an Article About How Women/Faggots/POCs/wtvr are "Trolling the Trolls""
"NYT Boldly Asks the Most Pressing Question of Our Time: "Are Jared and Ivanka Good for the Jews?""
"Memetic Monday: Daily Stormer Diner"
"The Krypto Report -- Episode XLVII: Shabbos Problems"
"Leader of "Church" is a Communist Lover of Jews: Is This Hell?"
"Tijuana Race War: Mexicans vs Central Americans"
Pick a story that mentions "bankers" or "Soros" or the word "global". Now count how many comments before you get to one that is shockingly anti-semitic.
Go to any Slashdot story. Now count how many comments you get before you get a "GNA" troll or similar garbage.
Plus, how can a site be "anti-establishment" if it supports the current political power structure?
The current power structure that hates Trump because he's sorta anti-establishment? You're living in a loony-toon world where anybody to the right of the insane left is a neo-Nazi.
Don't believe anything you read on Zerohedge. It's basically the Daily Stormer with stock numbers
You're full of shit. Daily Stormer is a neo-Nazi site. Zero Hedge is an anti-establishment site. That said, Zero Hedge tends to extrapolate beyond the facts, so cross-check anything they claim with other sites. But we all know by now how partisan every news site has become, so cross-check any site with alternative points of view.
Yes, but as I pointed out, the law in the US does define hate speech.
No, you haven't. Section and code. I'll wait.
Next time you get a speeding ticket try arguing that speeding isn't mentioned in the constitution.
I'll refer to the constitution if anybody tries to give me a ticket for "hate speech", as the 1st amendment explicitly guarantees the right to free speech, and it's been upheld by the courts.
Rather than make silly arguments like that, why not look up some cases (Wikipedia is a good place to start) and see how it is applied, and then make an argument against one that you disagree with.
Rather than just hand wave, why don't you look up cases and make an argument. I've already stated actual law and linked to Wikipedia. There is no recognized "hate speech" in the United States per the 1st Amendment.
Google is the only player with even a hope in hell of defeating Amazon
Walmart already has stores across the country. If anybody is poised to beat Amazon at their own game, it's them. They're also making a healthy profit of ~$100 billion a year, and have been for some time.
Try buying a few PERFECTLY LEGAL animated pr0n DVDs on Amazon, & watch the female LEA decoys in your jurisdiction crawl out of the woodwork to completely destroy your life in its entirety.
The people who care are the evangelists. Either the old style religious evangelists and the new breed of nature, vegetarianism, environmentalism evangelists.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Some of the worst outcomes have been engineered by people trying to do what is "right".
Banning straws, "sanctuary" state, endless regulations, cities filled with people living in tents on the sidewalk, streets covered in human shit and needles, all while whole towns burn amid yearly wildfires. Hotel California is rotten.
Shouldn't have posted before waking up. Totally missed the appeals part. I read it entirely also. Wow. Ok, sounds way more like EFF heh. Glad I donate.
Good to see they haven't lost their principles to social "justice" like the ACLU.
Hate speech is a legal term with two functions, depending on jurisdiction.
Just to be clear, there is no "hate speech" under the 1st amendment. In before: Blah blah, "private companies", blah blah, "Europe".
Second is to recognise that some speech can do people real harm.
Sticking with the 1st amendment, speech is not recognized as harmful unless imminent lawless action is involved.
"Hate speech", as used by censorious authoritarians, makes it difficult to criticize particular groups of people, regardless of how well-founded those criticisms may be.
The vast majority of web applications are not written in C. The operating system and other underlying software is, but that's not what the OWASP paper was talking about.
Your link was deficient because it didn't include web applications, which is where most of the code written today actually is.
My link had columns for XSS and SQL injection. I explicitly mentioned them in my reply. Aren't you tired of being so wrong about obvious things?
A single buffer overflow can't be exploited on a modern system, it takes more vulnerabilities than that.
It depends on the vulnerability. Also, at the minimum, they often result in a crash. But the fact is that buffer overflows are resulting in exploits.
If you can't keep track of your memory, how are you going to write secure code?
If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding?
Security? Invalid memory accesses are too hard to exploit these days with things like ASLR and other kernel protections. They can still be exploited but it's not nearly as easy as it used to be.
You just contradicted yourself.
If you want to use C and still be safe, you can create an API for dealing with memory chunks.
Or you can spare yourself a lot of pain and just move to a language where that happens by default.
The most common types of vulnerabilities these days are things like SQL (or noSQL) injection, and XSS. Invalid memory access doesn't even make the top 10, but of course you already know that.
Oh, really? Invalid memory issues still make up around 20%, and it's the single-highest category of security vulnerability, even more than XSS, and more than double SQL injection.
Slashdot Mirror
So, they were guilty? And the eight investigations were all wrong?
I told you, it was a whitewash, easily explained by the political climate around global warming. At the minimum, Phil Jones should have been fired and charged for violating a Freedom of Information request, and telling other people to delete their email. Does this sound like transparent science to you? How science should be done by a top member in their field?
Oh, that does not seem to be the case.
I like how you keep quoting Wikipedia, which has its own bias and relies on biased sources, instead of delving into theactual issues surrounding the graph.
Did you watch the video I linked to by the Berkeley science for an alternative view? Why don't you engage with the actual argument being made?
Except, it did not show that at all.
Except it did. I've looked into it in detail, read both sides of the argument, and everything I said is true.
Pointing to it as an example of the "dishonesty" of the vast majority of researchers is pretty disingenuous.
The researchers involved were heavy hitters and proponents of the "hockey stick", the widely promulgated graph of global warming.
"The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them."
I tried looking up the citation for Wikipedia's claim here, and the direct link did not work. I would like to see an exact quote from the reference that backs up this claim.
Regardless, there's a political climate around propping up the threat of global warming, and a lot of whitewashing going around. Rather than rely on Wikipedia or summaries, I looked at primary sources. I looked at the graphs, the emails, and what, exactly, "hide the decline" referred to.
I looked at how Phil Jones told people to delete email. How he said would rather delete data than give it to climate skeptics. At how the internal debates regarding the uncertainties of climate science was not communicated to the wider public. Quite the opposite, it was actively hidden.
If you want an alternative view, from a Berkeley scientist, watch the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The above story is more-or-less the Average Person when it comes to science. What's worse: take the average person and add religion? It's even worse, they not only believe most science is bullshit intended to trick them, they believe science is EVIL and Satanic and they're trying to mislead them away from their God. That's the sort of icecream-headache-causing nonsense we're fighting against here.
What's even worse are the people who think they are smarter than everybody else, that treat scientists as the new priesthood class, but are wearing their own intellectual blinders.
Climategate showed scientists were willing to chop off decades worth of proxy data because it didn't match the recent warming. That they were willing to deceitfully present the science to the wider public to hide such discrepancies. That they were willing to delete email and data to prevent transparency.
We've seen the wider press be willing to misrepresent the science, creating false narratives about polar bears, for example. We keep hearing every so many years how we have to *act now* or it will be too late, and then get the alarmist message repeated. Alarmism is the mantra of climate science journalism.
How often do we get a reasoned and balanced discussion on climate change? Do we balance the benefits of predicted climate change versus the negative? Do we quantify the cost of drastic carbon reduction, both in human lives and monetarily? Is this a 100-year problem that will be better served tackling it with tomorrow's technology and economy?
Hopefully this will start a new space race
The manned moon missions ate up ungodly amounts of funding and did very little science in return. It was awe inspiring, to be sure, but we need to be smart with our spending. We already spend plenty on space telescopes, probes, and landers.
It's called a hack. Rather than fix the root problem, just work around it.
Sea levels rose 400 feet in the last 20,000 years. Pretending that climate isn't going to change is the short-sighted approach.
Some other things to consider:
o CO2 increases are greening the earth.
o Carbon powers the world's economy. Is the cost of reducing carbon emissions worse than the cost of hypothesized problems?
o We're already changing the planet in many other ways. Just look at pictures of Earth from space. Environmentalists and world-government authoritarians aren't going to be happy until we're all living under worldwide socialism (UN agenda 2030).
The "media" doesn't have an army, or law enforcement powers, or the ability to make laws.
But they do have the ability to shape public opinion and pressure politicians.
Also, Fox News is as much "establishment media" as any of the other networks.
Yes, they are the sole "conservative" network, and even they can be antagonistic to Trump at times. The dopes even sided with CNN over the Acosta affair.
You should have used "cuckservative" in your first comment so I would have known not to waste any time on you.
You were wasting time to begin with by equating Zero Hedge to Daily Stormer.
I just went over to Zerohedge and found a front page story about Facebook. You wouldn't think that would be fertile ground for neo-nazis, but let's look at some of the highest-rated comments:
Huh, imagine that, anti-Jewish comments on the Internet on a story about a company where the founder and next-highest position are both Jews, and the company is one of the most powerful Internet companies in the world. You'll find the same stuff in YouTube comments. Yet you completely ignore the articles in favor of the comments.
Everything you've said here is bullshit, but this one takes the cake.
I quoted headlines, while you spout bullshit neo-Nazi smear equivalencies.
Every single branch of government in the United States is currently being run by pro-Trump Republicans.
So you're just going to deny that the establishment media is against Trump? That cuckservatives like Paul Ryan, John McCain, or Jeff Flake weren't against him on issues like immigration? That the entire Trump-Russia collusion witch hunt wasn't engineered by deep state operatives in the DoJ, the FBI, and the DNC/Clinton campaign? That there aren't never-Trumpers and "resistance" people within his own administration? That Trump essentially engaged in a hostile takeover of the Republican party?
I did say sorta anti-establishment, because while he goes against the grain on some issues, on many others he's just more of the same.
You will find a lot more anti-semitic and racist stuff on Zerohedge than you will on Daily Stormer.
Why do you post such obvious bullshit when anybody can check for themselves?
Here, do this simple test: Go to Zerohedge right now.
Top 6 headlines:
"White House To Pull Acosta's Pass Again After Temporary Court Order Expires"
"One Less Rate-Hike Doesn't Trump A Trade War"
"Rock And A Hard Place? EU Backs Limited Iran Sanctions Over Paris Bomb Plot"
"Morgan Stanley Calls It: "We Are In A Bear Market""
"Senate Democrats Sue To Remove Whitaker As Acting AG"
"Kunstler: Welcome To GenderWorld"
Daily Stormer:
"Tfw There's an Article About How Women/Faggots/POCs/wtvr are "Trolling the Trolls""
"NYT Boldly Asks the Most Pressing Question of Our Time: "Are Jared and Ivanka Good for the Jews?""
"Memetic Monday: Daily Stormer Diner"
"The Krypto Report -- Episode XLVII: Shabbos Problems"
"Leader of "Church" is a Communist Lover of Jews: Is This Hell?"
"Tijuana Race War: Mexicans vs Central Americans"
Pick a story that mentions "bankers" or "Soros" or the word "global". Now count how many comments before you get to one that is shockingly anti-semitic.
Go to any Slashdot story. Now count how many comments you get before you get a "GNA" troll or similar garbage.
Plus, how can a site be "anti-establishment" if it supports the current political power structure?
The current power structure that hates Trump because he's sorta anti-establishment? You're living in a loony-toon world where anybody to the right of the insane left is a neo-Nazi.
Don't believe anything you read on Zerohedge. It's basically the Daily Stormer with stock numbers
You're full of shit. Daily Stormer is a neo-Nazi site. Zero Hedge is an anti-establishment site. That said, Zero Hedge tends to extrapolate beyond the facts, so cross-check anything they claim with other sites. But we all know by now how partisan every news site has become, so cross-check any site with alternative points of view.
The average American Salary is still $58,000 if you believe that.
The average (mean) net compensation: $48k
The median net compensation: $32k
Source: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/...
As you can see, hate crimes are legally defined, and speech can be a component or used as evidence of motivation.
That's not the same as "hate speech".
Yes, but as I pointed out, the law in the US does define hate speech.
No, you haven't. Section and code. I'll wait.
Next time you get a speeding ticket try arguing that speeding isn't mentioned in the constitution.
I'll refer to the constitution if anybody tries to give me a ticket for "hate speech", as the 1st amendment explicitly guarantees the right to free speech, and it's been upheld by the courts.
Rather than make silly arguments like that, why not look up some cases (Wikipedia is a good place to start) and see how it is applied, and then make an argument against one that you disagree with.
Rather than just hand wave, why don't you look up cases and make an argument. I've already stated actual law and linked to Wikipedia. There is no recognized "hate speech" in the United States per the 1st Amendment.
the argument is that speech which does not direct immediate crimes but which does cause people to be justifiably fearful qualifies
By that standard, all political speech is hate speech.
Google is the only player with even a hope in hell of defeating Amazon
Walmart already has stores across the country. If anybody is poised to beat Amazon at their own game, it's them. They're also making a healthy profit of ~$100 billion a year, and have been for some time.
Try buying a few PERFECTLY LEGAL animated pr0n DVDs on Amazon, & watch the female LEA decoys in your jurisdiction crawl out of the woodwork to completely destroy your life in its entirety.
Sounds like fun. What titles do you recommend?
The people who care are the evangelists. Either the old style religious evangelists and the new breed of nature, vegetarianism, environmentalism evangelists.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Some of the worst outcomes have been engineered by people trying to do what is "right".
Banning straws, "sanctuary" state, endless regulations, cities filled with people living in tents on the sidewalk, streets covered in human shit and needles, all while whole towns burn amid yearly wildfires. Hotel California is rotten.
I don't know whether you want to call that evil or not, but it's certainly not maximally beneficial to anyone except the logging company.
I don't know about "maximally beneficial", but surely it'd be better than the current yearly wildfires, where entire towns are being wiped out?
Shouldn't have posted before waking up. Totally missed the appeals part. I read it entirely also. Wow. Ok, sounds way more like EFF heh. Glad I donate.
Good to see they haven't lost their principles to social "justice" like the ACLU.
Hate speech is a legal term with two functions, depending on jurisdiction.
Just to be clear, there is no "hate speech" under the 1st amendment. In before: Blah blah, "private companies", blah blah, "Europe".
Second is to recognise that some speech can do people real harm.
Sticking with the 1st amendment, speech is not recognized as harmful unless imminent lawless action is involved.
"Hate speech", as used by censorious authoritarians, makes it difficult to criticize particular groups of people, regardless of how well-founded those criticisms may be.
ll web applications are partly written in C.
The vast majority of web applications are not written in C. The operating system and other underlying software is, but that's not what the OWASP paper was talking about.
Your link was deficient because it didn't include web applications, which is where most of the code written today actually is.
My link had columns for XSS and SQL injection. I explicitly mentioned them in my reply. Aren't you tired of being so wrong about obvious things?
A single buffer overflow can't be exploited on a modern system, it takes more vulnerabilities than that.
It depends on the vulnerability. Also, at the minimum, they often result in a crash. But the fact is that buffer overflows are resulting in exploits.
That's "The Ten Most Web Application Security Risks". Web applications. Most web applications are not written in C/C++.
If you can't keep track of your memory, how are you going to write secure code?
If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding?
Security? Invalid memory accesses are too hard to exploit these days with things like ASLR and other kernel protections. They can still be exploited but it's not nearly as easy as it used to be.
You just contradicted yourself.
If you want to use C and still be safe, you can create an API for dealing with memory chunks.
Or you can spare yourself a lot of pain and just move to a language where that happens by default.
The most common types of vulnerabilities these days are things like SQL (or noSQL) injection, and XSS. Invalid memory access doesn't even make the top 10, but of course you already know that.
Oh, really? Invalid memory issues still make up around 20%, and it's the single-highest category of security vulnerability, even more than XSS, and more than double SQL injection.