Unless you're planning to exhume his remains and put them on trial (It's been done, see Oliver Cromwell) Goebbels has committed no crimes. Yes he is a monster, but he is no criminal.
That's nonsense. It's probably based on the legal principle "assumed innocent until proven guilty", but that fails in two ways. First, it's only a legal principle about how to treat suspects. It's not reality - guilt begins at the act, not at the conviction. And secondly, there is indeed plenty of proof of Goebbels crimes. There is no conviction (because he died before that), but that is also true for Bonnie and Clyde, Jack the Ripper, Richard Nixon, and even, as far as I know, Osama bin Laden.
story I'll just leave that there for you to look at. Artic will be completely ice free by 2013, by your scientists that shouldn't be questioned.
Here it is 2015 and I'm the idiot for pointing out they are wrong. This is why I think science is groupthink. They made a prediction, they were 100% wrong in outcome, and I get called names by pointing it out. This happened in the past. A guy said the earth rotates around the sun and had evidence, but everyone else called him a heretic and said he was wrong and the sun rotates around the earth.
You do understand that a) Maslowski was speaking about the possibility, not the certainty, and b), that he did not represent the mainstream, but deviated from it significantly? Indeed, this is the very opposite of "group think" - it's a range of different opinions.
The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean.
'm sorry, but the above is a very basic result from chemistry - typically something taught in high school. It's also something you experience in everyday live - a warm coke will go flat faster, but you also need some way to get the sparkle into the coke (by exposing it to CO2 at a very high partial pressure). This is not magic, it's basic physics and chemistry.
Hmmm... CO2 concentrations in liquid, sure. But what does that have to do with PH? You indicate that it's self-evident, but it's not to me. Maybe you can explain that relationship in high-school sciencey language. There are actually 3 different ways to measure PH, one of which is specific to ocean chemistry (the PH Seawater Scale - sws).
pH measures the concentration of H3O+, or, in simpler terms, the availability of free protons for reactions. Acids are substances that like losing a proton. The acid that causes acidification of our oceans (and sparkle in sodas and sparkling water) is carbonic acid, or CO2 dissolved in water. More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more CO2 dissolved in the water, which equals more carbonic acid and a lower pH. How you measure pH is an independent question.
I'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem.
No, it's not, actually. Especially in science (not the scientific community that is awash in politic, but the work of science it certainly is).
I think you misread my comment. I'm trying hard to avoid an ad-hominem attack on you while pointing out that the level of understanding you exhibit does not give the impression that you understand the principles of the issue.
Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry.
Nice try. See above.
See what above?
What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?
I can't understand everything, certainly, but much of it is accessible to me. Much of it because I'm good at maths. And language.
Your Junk Science link discusses and mentions only one paper. It takes the results out of context and misrepresents the paper by conflating temperature-driven processes (including e.g. seasonal changes) with CO2 driven processes (which increase the base level the pH varies around. Junk Science also take results from one inland lake in Japan and extrapolates that to the worlds ocean - talk about unjustified extrapolation.
I think you are misreading it. They are using the data from the lake in Japan to demonstrate specific relationships. For 280,000 years. It's no more an extrapolation than "More CO2 increases the greenhouse effect." Physical properties are physical properties.
Who is "they"? The authors of the original paper or the operators of Junk Science?
The original paper is here, and looking at the abstract, you can see that the interpretation at
Hockeyschtick parroted at Junk Science is completely misleading, and basically has nothing to do with the paper.
At your second link, Sustainable Oregon , I fail to find a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. There may well be one, but if so it's carefully hidden among links to so-called think tank publications, denier blogs, and self-published (as opposed to scientific) opinion pieces.
Most of that is a review of the ONE study on ocean acidification that keeps getting quoted. And those reviews are
Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.
You seem to be more familiar with this aspect of the science than I am. I have not looked into those claims although I've skimmed some of the arguments on both sides.
I'm sorry, but the above is a very basic result from chemistry - typically something taught in high school. It's also something you experience in everyday live - a warm coke will go flat faster, but you also need some way to get the sparkle into the coke (by exposing it to CO2 at a very high partial pressure). This is not magic, it's basic physics and chemistry.
What I found interesting was the critique of the published numbers of PH readings. There are a lot of questions in the detail of what is being measured. Most of all, the most often-quoted studies that extrapolate changes BACKWARD - to the turn of the century - using trends from only 15 - 20 years of data. I haven't seen an explanation for this, but the EPA's website only shows readings from 1980 - 1985. They don't do the backward extrapolation, though.
It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Google filters those. But peer-reviewed papers are what I look for as an ultimate source.
I'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem. I do read scientific papers for a living (well, part of it). I do write reasonably well-regarded papers, and I frequently are asked to formally review papers (which I usually do). I find it quite hard to fully comprehend papers that are within my general area of science (computer science) and even my specialty (logic and deduction) if they are not within my area of micro-specialisation (first-order reasoning). Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry. What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?
That's the reason I posted the links above. They include many references to the peer-reviewed work.
Your Junk Science link discusses and mentions only one paper. It takes the results out of context and misrepresents the paper by conflating temperature-driven processes (including e.g. seasonal changes) with CO2 driven processes (which increase the base level the pH varies around. Junk Science also take results from one inland lake in Japan and extrapolates that to the worlds ocean - talk about unjustified extrapolation.
At your second link, Sustainable Oregon, I fail to find a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. There may well be one, but if so it's carefully hidden among links to so-called think tank publications, denier blogs, and self-published (as opposed to scientific) opinion pieces.
No, it turns out the PH scare was false. The original study, it turns out, didn't even use real data - it extrapolated 80 years of PH levels from about 15 years of data. Lots more details.
Actually, JunkScience is, well, junk science. Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.
It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.
I am sorry what is it about ice being melted by volcanoes escaped your notice ?
You mean the section that says "It is important to note that none of this research suggests that global warming and climate change are not affecting the ice sheets of Antarctica but they do imply that any melting due to global warming is being exacerbated by geothermal heating from beneath the ice cap"? Yes, I read that. I also read that "A survey of the thickness of the Earth's crust in Antarctica found a particularly thin zone under Marie Byrd Land, where the Thwaites Glacier is located, which is consistent with the presence of a 'major volcanic dome'", which indicates that this is a long-term effect and should not affect the net rate of melting - it would be part of the steady state if we had one.
Despite that the coverage area is still increasing
Again, what is increasing is the maximum sea ice extend. The ice mass balance is strictly negative - i.e. there is more ice melting than water freezing year over year. The amount of ice is going down, by about 70 Gt per year (albeit with large uncertainties), and accelerating.
Total ice covering antarctica expanding despite Geothermal Melting
Want to explain just how atmospheric CO2 triggers vulcanism ?
But please keep on proving Emily Dickinson correct about the perils of an unexamined life.
From your source: "Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year." Do you read those sources, or do you just google for confirmation using bad search terms?
15 years after the prediction date the Arctic is still covered in ice and the and the Antarctic ice is expanding.
And your point is? Because one non-scientist made an ambiguous claim about a possible outcome, all scientific claims are invalid? We've started commercial shipping through the Arctic, and
"Antarctic ice" is shrinking, what is growing slightly is maximum Antarctic sea ice extend.
That would be like the "Hypothetically " ice free north pole by 2000 ?
Actually, the full quote is "...and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean..." (emphasis mine). The source of the claim, Berndt Balchen certainly had an interesting biography, but neither was he trained as a scientist, nor what the statement in a scientific publication.
yeah why don't you go tax a volcano because just one small eruption is millions of times larger in volume of CO than the entire world production of hydrocarbon fuels... [...]
I'm sorry, but that is simply unscientific nonsense. Human emissions are about 2 orders of magnitude greater than all volcanic emissions combined. None of the major volcanic eruptions of the last decades have left a significant blip in the CO2 curves. See e.g. the USGS on the issue.
You may not know every detail of every computer, but if you can't build your own computer at home, then you should figure out how. It's doable in less than a semester, and you'll be happy you did.
Well, I can order an iMac from Apple, plug in the keyboard and the mouse, and say "I build a computer". Or I start with a shovel of sand and make my own silicon. I don't know how many computer users understand flip-flops, or nand-gates, or FETs. I think some of that should be in the general understanding of science. And for computer scientists, knowing about things like cache size and organisation, register set, and ALU capabilities does make a significant difference if coding for performance. I was once bitten during the transition from SPARC to Intel when I found out that SPARC's fantastically thought out register windows (meant to sped up function calls) actually slowed down function calls once your calling depth became great enough that you ran through the register file and had to start putting those large register windows on the stack. Register-starved Intel did better in that case. So benchmarking on SPARC indicated "no recursion", while in Intel recursion was actually faster than iteration with a dedicated stack in software.
Additionally, most of these approaches most naturally generate DC rather than AC, so you may need to replace large amounts of equipment. (OTOH, solar cells generate DC, so you can probably just feed it into whatever converter you are already using.)
That particular converter is called an inverter, and is pretty standard today. There are some good reasons for using more DC (in particular high-voltage DC for long-distance transmission).
We either see the change over a generation or two and watch the rich lose some land or we take action right now to ptotect the mega corporate farms and the rich's land holding and see the costs increase in a decade of less.
While the Dutch people may be on the rich side world-wide (and by median maybe even by US standards), I'm no so sure about the Bangladeshi. But hey, there only 150000000 of them, and most of them are on the brown side...
We have determined that to a very high level of consensus in the scientific community.
In other words, there's less validation on a potentially world-changing theory than on the validity of a single bitcoin.
Absolute certainty is only available in the realm of pure maths and logic. Well-programmed computers come quite close to that, but most systems cannot be perfectly understood even in principle - see The Matrix and Descarte's evil demon. The level of certainty of AGW is much better than the level of certainty we accept to send people to prison (which is supposed to be "beyond reasonable doubt").
How about we get politics out of science and rely on the scientific method to determine if "Global Warming" is real or not.
We have determined that to a very high level of consensus in the scientific community. The result is politically and economically unwelcome, which is why some people and organisation deny the consensus. You don't need to get the politics out of science, you need to get the science into politics.
That said, the vote very much reminds me of Indiana in 1897 and some thing with square circles;-).
"They" (both NOAA and Berkley Earth independently) have done that. Berkley Earth found no significant difference when using only the best locations (but then their automated method is designed to compensate spurious jumps in temperature) (here) and NOAA found a slight low bias for badly sited stations (here). IIRC, there also is a similar NASA study coming to the same results, but I don't remember the authors or title.
CPS is so competent here in Florida that they leave a 5 year old girl in the custody of a man they were told would harm her, giving him the opportunity to throw her off a bridge, killing her.
Anecdotes are not data. You cannot expect perfection - if you have a sufficiently large organisation, someone will fuck up sometimes.The question is if the organisation is doing an ok job overall, and if it there are ways to address errors of judgement.
Also, there is the perennial problem of adequate funding. A decent service of any kind is not free, nor usually cheap. Either we need to pay sufficient taxes, or we must do without certain services provided by the state (and/or live with crappy services). If a CPS worker has to handle 8 cases per day, they can spend a grand total of one hour per case (assuming no overhead -ha!) - and if a team of to spends half a day on one visit, that means the other 15 cases get only about half an hour.
We can whine one way or the other, but whining both ways (less taxes and more/better services) is not a sign of much maturity.
Here is a question: Does it matter if I know the strategy of the opposing player? Looking at the researchers website, the algorithm seems to be deterministic. So I could use the meta-knowledge about how Cepheus would play with any possible hand (that is compatible with my hand and the public cards), and could bet accordingly. From what I've read so far, I don't know if that effect is modelled in the paper.
You will find plenty in each of those fields who have written papers on each side of the debate.
A classical case of both abductive reasoning and confirmation bias. Some climate scientists are geologists, but not all geologists are climate scientists. Some climate scientists are mathematicians, but not all mathematicians are climate scientists. And so on. Yes, if you water down the definition to include more and more people, you will get a few more dissenting voices. But its still minuscule compared to your base. Nearly all professional scientific organisations accept man's influence on the climate. None is known to maintain the dissenting opinion. And while some of the dissenters have written "papers", most of these "papers" have not been published by the scientific press, but by so-called think-tanks or web blogs. Even so, finding "plenty" is a far stretch - it's a small group of deniers with maybe three or four people with some credibility left.
It's not something within the remit of voters to approve or disprove.
Of course it is. They can stop reelecting crooks to the office. Or free will does not exist.. Take your pick
Sure they can do something about it, and they are welcome to it. But any approval is morally void by the most basic natural laws, at least according to my morality compass. There is no process that justifies subjecting anybody to this treatment. And whoever is affected has an absolute right to self-defence against such treatment - and I'm hard-pressed not to argue that there even is a right, if not a duty, for others to intervene. If we go there, all claims of moral superiority of the west evaporate, and most "terrorists" suddenly have a valid moral claim. It seems to work fine the other way round - see classics like Rambo 2 or Red Dawn.
Question: If it's necessary to extract information,[...]
How do you know it's necessary? In all those ticking bomb scenarios, how do you ever know 100% that there is a ticking bomb, and that you have the one person that can tell you where it is, but miss any other useful information?
Apart from the immorality of torture, and the ineffectiveness of it, it also leads to the deterioration of proper police and intelligence work. Why infiltrate organisations, keep your ear on the ground, talk to people, maintain contacts, observe, when you can just grab some schmuck of the street and torture him (or her)? You'll get a lot of information you can sell as a success, wether true or false...
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're planning to exhume his remains and put them on trial (It's been done, see Oliver Cromwell) Goebbels has committed no crimes. Yes he is a monster, but he is no criminal.
That's nonsense. It's probably based on the legal principle "assumed innocent until proven guilty", but that fails in two ways. First, it's only a legal principle about how to treat suspects. It's not reality - guilt begins at the act, not at the conviction. And secondly, there is indeed plenty of proof of Goebbels crimes. There is no conviction (because he died before that), but that is also true for Bonnie and Clyde, Jack the Ripper, Richard Nixon, and even, as far as I know, Osama bin Laden.
story I'll just leave that there for you to look at. Artic will be completely ice free by 2013, by your scientists that shouldn't be questioned.
Here it is 2015 and I'm the idiot for pointing out they are wrong. This is why I think science is groupthink. They made a prediction, they were 100% wrong in outcome, and I get called names by pointing it out. This happened in the past. A guy said the earth rotates around the sun and had evidence, but everyone else called him a heretic and said he was wrong and the sun rotates around the earth.
You do understand that a) Maslowski was speaking about the possibility, not the certainty, and b), that he did not represent the mainstream, but deviated from it significantly? Indeed, this is the very opposite of "group think" - it's a range of different opinions.
The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean.
'm sorry, but the above is a very basic result from chemistry - typically something taught in high school. It's also something you experience in everyday live - a warm coke will go flat faster, but you also need some way to get the sparkle into the coke (by exposing it to CO2 at a very high partial pressure). This is not magic, it's basic physics and chemistry.
Hmmm... CO2 concentrations in liquid, sure. But what does that have to do with PH? You indicate that it's self-evident, but it's not to me. Maybe you can explain that relationship in high-school sciencey language. There are actually 3 different ways to measure PH, one of which is specific to ocean chemistry (the PH Seawater Scale - sws).
pH measures the concentration of H3O+, or, in simpler terms, the availability of free protons for reactions. Acids are substances that like losing a proton. The acid that causes acidification of our oceans (and sparkle in sodas and sparkling water) is carbonic acid, or CO2 dissolved in water. More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more CO2 dissolved in the water, which equals more carbonic acid and a lower pH. How you measure pH is an independent question.
I'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem.
No, it's not, actually. Especially in science (not the scientific community that is awash in politic, but the work of science it certainly is).
I think you misread my comment. I'm trying hard to avoid an ad-hominem attack on you while pointing out that the level of understanding you exhibit does not give the impression that you understand the principles of the issue.
Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry.
Nice try. See above.
See what above?
What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?
I can't understand everything, certainly, but much of it is accessible to me. Much of it because I'm good at maths. And language.
Your Junk Science link discusses and mentions only one paper. It takes the results out of context and misrepresents the paper by conflating temperature-driven processes (including e.g. seasonal changes) with CO2 driven processes (which increase the base level the pH varies around. Junk Science also take results from one inland lake in Japan and extrapolates that to the worlds ocean - talk about unjustified extrapolation.
I think you are misreading it. They are using the data from the lake in Japan to demonstrate specific relationships. For 280,000 years. It's no more an extrapolation than "More CO2 increases the greenhouse effect." Physical properties are physical properties.
Who is "they"? The authors of the original paper or the operators of Junk Science? The original paper is here, and looking at the abstract, you can see that the interpretation at Hockeyschtick parroted at Junk Science is completely misleading, and basically has nothing to do with the paper.
At your second link, Sustainable Oregon , I fail to find a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. There may well be one, but if so it's carefully hidden among links to so-called think tank publications, denier blogs, and self-published (as opposed to scientific) opinion pieces.
Most of that is a review of the ONE study on ocean acidification that keeps getting quoted. And those reviews are
More ad hominems to ignore.
Since when is a web site a hominus?
Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.
You seem to be more familiar with this aspect of the science than I am. I have not looked into those claims although I've skimmed some of the arguments on both sides.
I'm sorry, but the above is a very basic result from chemistry - typically something taught in high school. It's also something you experience in everyday live - a warm coke will go flat faster, but you also need some way to get the sparkle into the coke (by exposing it to CO2 at a very high partial pressure). This is not magic, it's basic physics and chemistry.
What I found interesting was the critique of the published numbers of PH readings. There are a lot of questions in the detail of what is being measured. Most of all, the most often-quoted studies that extrapolate changes BACKWARD - to the turn of the century - using trends from only 15 - 20 years of data. I haven't seen an explanation for this, but the EPA's website only shows readings from 1980 - 1985. They don't do the backward extrapolation, though.
It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Google filters those. But peer-reviewed papers are what I look for as an ultimate source.
I'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem. I do read scientific papers for a living (well, part of it). I do write reasonably well-regarded papers, and I frequently are asked to formally review papers (which I usually do). I find it quite hard to fully comprehend papers that are within my general area of science (computer science) and even my specialty (logic and deduction) if they are not within my area of micro-specialisation (first-order reasoning). Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry. What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?
That's the reason I posted the links above. They include many references to the peer-reviewed work.
Your Junk Science link discusses and mentions only one paper. It takes the results out of context and misrepresents the paper by conflating temperature-driven processes (including e.g. seasonal changes) with CO2 driven processes (which increase the base level the pH varies around. Junk Science also take results from one inland lake in Japan and extrapolates that to the worlds ocean - talk about unjustified extrapolation.
At your second link, Sustainable Oregon , I fail to find a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. There may well be one, but if so it's carefully hidden among links to so-called think tank publications, denier blogs, and self-published (as opposed to scientific) opinion pieces.
No, it turns out the PH scare was false. The original study, it turns out, didn't even use real data - it extrapolated 80 years of PH levels from about 15 years of data. Lots more details.
Actually, JunkScience is, well, junk science. Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.
It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.
I am sorry what is it about ice being melted by volcanoes escaped your notice ?
You mean the section that says "It is important to note that none of this research suggests that global warming and climate change are not affecting the ice sheets of Antarctica but they do imply that any melting due to global warming is being exacerbated by geothermal heating from beneath the ice cap"? Yes, I read that. I also read that "A survey of the thickness of the Earth's crust in Antarctica found a particularly thin zone under Marie Byrd Land, where the Thwaites Glacier is located, which is consistent with the presence of a 'major volcanic dome'", which indicates that this is a long-term effect and should not affect the net rate of melting - it would be part of the steady state if we had one.
Despite that the coverage area is still increasing
Again, what is increasing is the maximum sea ice extend. The ice mass balance is strictly negative - i.e. there is more ice melting than water freezing year over year. The amount of ice is going down, by about 70 Gt per year (albeit with large uncertainties), and accelerating.
Try again http://www.reportingclimatesci...
Total ice covering antarctica expanding despite Geothermal Melting
Want to explain just how atmospheric CO2 triggers vulcanism ?
But please keep on proving Emily Dickinson correct about the perils of an unexamined life.
From your source: "Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year." Do you read those sources, or do you just google for confirmation using bad search terms?
15 years after the prediction date the Arctic is still covered in ice and the and the Antarctic ice is expanding.
And your point is? Because one non-scientist made an ambiguous claim about a possible outcome, all scientific claims are invalid? We've started commercial shipping through the Arctic, and "Antarctic ice" is shrinking, what is growing slightly is maximum Antarctic sea ice extend.
Lets Hypothetically ?
https://news.google.com/newspa...
That would be like the "Hypothetically " ice free north pole by 2000 ?
Actually, the full quote is "...and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean..." (emphasis mine). The source of the claim, Berndt Balchen certainly had an interesting biography, but neither was he trained as a scientist, nor what the statement in a scientific publication.
yeah why don't you go tax a volcano because just one small eruption is millions of times larger in volume of CO than the entire world production of hydrocarbon fuels... [...]
I'm sorry, but that is simply unscientific nonsense. Human emissions are about 2 orders of magnitude greater than all volcanic emissions combined. None of the major volcanic eruptions of the last decades have left a significant blip in the CO2 curves. See e.g. the USGS on the issue.
Wow. From 0 to Hitler in two posts. Must be somekind of record
Sadly, not.
You may not know every detail of every computer, but if you can't build your own computer at home, then you should figure out how. It's doable in less than a semester, and you'll be happy you did.
Well, I can order an iMac from Apple, plug in the keyboard and the mouse, and say "I build a computer". Or I start with a shovel of sand and make my own silicon. I don't know how many computer users understand flip-flops, or nand-gates, or FETs. I think some of that should be in the general understanding of science. And for computer scientists, knowing about things like cache size and organisation, register set, and ALU capabilities does make a significant difference if coding for performance. I was once bitten during the transition from SPARC to Intel when I found out that SPARC's fantastically thought out register windows (meant to sped up function calls) actually slowed down function calls once your calling depth became great enough that you ran through the register file and had to start putting those large register windows on the stack. Register-starved Intel did better in that case. So benchmarking on SPARC indicated "no recursion", while in Intel recursion was actually faster than iteration with a dedicated stack in software.
Additionally, most of these approaches most naturally generate DC rather than AC, so you may need to replace large amounts of equipment. (OTOH, solar cells generate DC, so you can probably just feed it into whatever converter you are already using.)
That particular converter is called an inverter, and is pretty standard today. There are some good reasons for using more DC (in particular high-voltage DC for long-distance transmission).
find two opposing points of view and present them as equals
That's not it.
Methinks you need to take your sarcasmometer back to the shop for readjustment...
We either see the change over a generation or two and watch the rich lose some land or we take action right now to ptotect the mega corporate farms and the rich's land holding and see the costs increase in a decade of less.
While the Dutch people may be on the rich side world-wide (and by median maybe even by US standards), I'm no so sure about the Bangladeshi. But hey, there only 150000000 of them, and most of them are on the brown side...
We have determined that to a very high level of consensus in the scientific community.
In other words, there's less validation on a potentially world-changing theory than on the validity of a single bitcoin.
Absolute certainty is only available in the realm of pure maths and logic. Well-programmed computers come quite close to that, but most systems cannot be perfectly understood even in principle - see The Matrix and Descarte's evil demon. The level of certainty of AGW is much better than the level of certainty we accept to send people to prison (which is supposed to be "beyond reasonable doubt").
How about we get politics out of science and rely on the scientific method to determine if "Global Warming" is real or not.
We have determined that to a very high level of consensus in the scientific community. The result is politically and economically unwelcome, which is why some people and organisation deny the consensus. You don't need to get the politics out of science, you need to get the science into politics.
That said, the vote very much reminds me of Indiana in 1897 and some thing with square circles ;-).
"They" (both NOAA and Berkley Earth independently) have done that. Berkley Earth found no significant difference when using only the best locations (but then their automated method is designed to compensate spurious jumps in temperature) (here) and NOAA found a slight low bias for badly sited stations (here). IIRC, there also is a similar NASA study coming to the same results, but I don't remember the authors or title.
CPS is so competent here in Florida that they leave a 5 year old girl in the custody of a man they were told would harm her, giving him the opportunity to throw her off a bridge, killing her.
Anecdotes are not data. You cannot expect perfection - if you have a sufficiently large organisation, someone will fuck up sometimes.The question is if the organisation is doing an ok job overall, and if it there are ways to address errors of judgement.
Also, there is the perennial problem of adequate funding. A decent service of any kind is not free, nor usually cheap. Either we need to pay sufficient taxes, or we must do without certain services provided by the state (and/or live with crappy services). If a CPS worker has to handle 8 cases per day, they can spend a grand total of one hour per case (assuming no overhead -ha!) - and if a team of to spends half a day on one visit, that means the other 15 cases get only about half an hour.
We can whine one way or the other, but whining both ways (less taxes and more/better services) is not a sign of much maturity.
Here is a question: Does it matter if I know the strategy of the opposing player? Looking at the researchers website, the algorithm seems to be deterministic. So I could use the meta-knowledge about how Cepheus would play with any possible hand (that is compatible with my hand and the public cards), and could bet accordingly. From what I've read so far, I don't know if that effect is modelled in the paper.
Was that before or after the historical data was fudged in ways the 'climate science" community won't disclose?
(And no, moderators, I'm not trolling. This is a legitimate question.)
Have you finally stopped beating your wife?
I believe you have bought into the MMGW or CAGW talking points to uphold the faith.
ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are scientists of different fields.
Your ignorance of that fact just shows how little you know about the field, or how hard you work at making the debate one sided.
Climate scientists are made up of:
- Physicists - Astrophysicists - Meteorologists - Geologists - Geophysicists - Hydrologists (engineering) - Environmental sciences - Mathematicians - Statisticians - Economists - Atmospheric scientists
You will find plenty in each of those fields who have written papers on each side of the debate.
A classical case of both abductive reasoning and confirmation bias. Some climate scientists are geologists, but not all geologists are climate scientists. Some climate scientists are mathematicians, but not all mathematicians are climate scientists. And so on. Yes, if you water down the definition to include more and more people, you will get a few more dissenting voices. But its still minuscule compared to your base. Nearly all professional scientific organisations accept man's influence on the climate. None is known to maintain the dissenting opinion. And while some of the dissenters have written "papers", most of these "papers" have not been published by the scientific press, but by so-called think-tanks or web blogs. Even so, finding "plenty" is a far stretch - it's a small group of deniers with maybe three or four people with some credibility left.
It's not something within the remit of voters to approve or disprove.
Of course it is. They can stop reelecting crooks to the office. Or free will does not exist.. Take your pick
Sure they can do something about it, and they are welcome to it. But any approval is morally void by the most basic natural laws, at least according to my morality compass. There is no process that justifies subjecting anybody to this treatment. And whoever is affected has an absolute right to self-defence against such treatment - and I'm hard-pressed not to argue that there even is a right, if not a duty, for others to intervene. If we go there, all claims of moral superiority of the west evaporate, and most "terrorists" suddenly have a valid moral claim. It seems to work fine the other way round - see classics like Rambo 2 or Red Dawn.
Question: If it's necessary to extract information,[...]
How do you know it's necessary? In all those ticking bomb scenarios, how do you ever know 100% that there is a ticking bomb, and that you have the one person that can tell you where it is, but miss any other useful information?
Apart from the immorality of torture, and the ineffectiveness of it, it also leads to the deterioration of proper police and intelligence work. Why infiltrate organisations, keep your ear on the ground, talk to people, maintain contacts, observe, when you can just grab some schmuck of the street and torture him (or her)? You'll get a lot of information you can sell as a success, wether true or false...
Well, let's not pretend the voters disapprove, okay?
It's not something within the remit of voters to approve or disprove. Inalienable rights and all that....