There's always 3.0s and 4.0s on there. Does that mean CA is getting a 6.3 in a month? Might. I'd never bet on it though and the odds would be against it.
Would you be 'skeptical' about my claim of "The St. Louis Cardinals is the best baseball team of all time. As you can see, they've won every World Series since 2011." Or would you say I'm in 'denial' about years before 2011?
And there's a difference between skepticism and denial & falsehoods, too!
Proclaiming the earth has been cooling since 1997 is denial. Arguing over grant money is denial. Climategate was over denial. People laughing every time it snows, "Where's your global warming now?" is denial.
Let's assume for the sake of argument you're right. AGW gets 100 B-2s worth of funding a year while anti-AGW gets only 1 B-2. So what? That money goes to research, not to Bentleys and summer villas on the French Riviera.
Maybe it's a fame thing? Well, you don't get accolades in the scientific community for supporting the status quo. The big winner would be the one who first discovered this trend and that ship sailed.
Face it, the only way a scientist would become notable out of this now is if they were to unequivocally disprove AGW.
That's exactly what Richard Muller did! He questioned it! He took the data and did his own analysis. To say "my science" is unwilling to be questioned, the community would have had to prevent Muller from performing his own study.
Which did not happen.
Ergo, the science IS willing to be questioned. Muller's work unequivocally proves that. We've been letting it be questioned for the past decade. And we'll keep letting it be questioned, because skeptics demand it.
What we are, though, is exhausted, wondering just how many more times you need us to show "2+2=4" before you finally realize there may be something to it.
Yes, all this data that proves the point beyond all doubt. But when questioned,there is no debate of scientific merit or discussion of flaws, real or perceived, in the data.
That is your statement that I addressed. You pointed that 'when questioned' there is 'no debate of the data.' I supplied the result of one of the most damning arguments against the data, which ended up agreeing with the data. I made no further extrapolation.
I never stated the climate wasn't changing. It is. The data shows a warming trend.
Now it's not about the data? It's not about debating the scientific merit of the data? Now you wish to amend your remarks, or, perhaps more bluntly and accurately, "change your bullshit statement?"
Unfortunately both sides of this subject have gotten far too emotional to even consider the possibility that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
I know, on one side we've got loads of data, models, research... On the other side, denial.
If only we took half the data and half the denial, we'd ALL be right!
Because the proof of a good writer is the socio-political environment they lived through? Not the actual content of their prose?
Then again, given the most recent Laureate (a Swedish poet who, due to his being Swedish, had been a front runner for years, with reporters camping outside his house the day of the announcement (which is just embarrassing for everyone involved, I think)), you're probably more accurate on how to predict the Committee.
Damned if I can remember *anything* about the plot of that story, but if I somehow get thrown in a time warp back to the 1800s on a whaler, by God I'll be able to strip a whale and bubble the fat off like a BOSS.
I think I have (I've had to do it with Java), but that's part of the thing...I *tried* that on the Win7 box. (How I got from.NET to the Update Agent, who the hell knows...and I pity the poor saps less knowledgeable than I who also have to deal with this.)
At least when you un- and reinstall something on XP, it more often than not fixes the issue. (If it doesn't, it likely wasn't the issue.) It just seems more and more the case fixing something on W7 becomes an utter nightmare; I have to fight tooth and nail with the OS to get any progress made.
I won't argue that XP can go arse over tits, but I never got as irate over it as I have been with my Win7 system. XP would just make me sigh despondently, and, accepting fate, I'd get a drink while the progress bars finish.
So, over the weekend, I tried to update Curse Client on my Win7 system. It required installing the.NET 3.5 Framework Client.
It took me two bloody hours to get it to install properly. Tried the redist, tried Windows Update, remove and reinstall, nothing. I ended up having to find, download, and reinstall the update agent itself (because I can't get it off the update.microsoft site; THAT, in its infinite wisdom simply tells you to "use the Control Panel icon" which is such a brilliant help, never once assuming, hey, if they're visiting the webpage maybe there's a problem with their "Windows Update"? Naaaaaaah... ) to get the.NET stuff to install properly.
On my XP system, it Just Works.
So, thank you, Win7. Thank you for protecting me from myself. If I wanted my dick held for me every single time I pee, I'd get a Mac...
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds to me like they were dumbing it down for people who find science "too hard".
Like...the Italian Government?
It doesn't help that this:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientist_says_he_predicted_Italy_earthquake,_was_ignored
happened a month before.
I'm used to this. I have this site bookmarked and amuse myself with all the colored squares:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqscanv/
There's always 3.0s and 4.0s on there. Does that mean CA is getting a 6.3 in a month? Might. I'd never bet on it though and the odds would be against it.
The flip side is telling everyone they're in danger and then be charged with inciting a panic!
Catch-22 situation, best as I can see it.
Would you be 'skeptical' about my claim of "The St. Louis Cardinals is the best baseball team of all time. As you can see, they've won every World Series since 2011." Or would you say I'm in 'denial' about years before 2011?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1912/to:2012
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1978/to:2012
Fan of selective data, much?
And there's a difference between skepticism and denial & falsehoods, too!
Proclaiming the earth has been cooling since 1997 is denial.
Arguing over grant money is denial.
Climategate was over denial.
People laughing every time it snows, "Where's your global warming now?" is denial.
Oh, and now the money argument...
Let's assume for the sake of argument you're right. AGW gets 100 B-2s worth of funding a year while anti-AGW gets only 1 B-2.
So what? That money goes to research, not to Bentleys and summer villas on the French Riviera.
Maybe it's a fame thing? Well, you don't get accolades in the scientific community for supporting the status quo. The big winner would be the one who first discovered this trend and that ship sailed.
Face it, the only way a scientist would become notable out of this now is if they were to unequivocally disprove AGW.
No, they don't. You can have all the data, models, and research in the world, but it is all meaningless if questions are not allowed.
And who's not allowing questions?
How is it not unwilling to be questioned?
That's exactly what Richard Muller did! He questioned it! He took the data and did his own analysis.
To say "my science" is unwilling to be questioned, the community would have had to prevent Muller from performing his own study.
Which did not happen.
Ergo, the science IS willing to be questioned. Muller's work unequivocally proves that.
We've been letting it be questioned for the past decade. And we'll keep letting it be questioned, because skeptics demand it.
What we are, though, is exhausted, wondering just how many more times you need us to show "2+2=4" before you finally realize there may be something to it.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/
From your own search query debunking your radical claim
An item you linked to:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/
Your link does not support your conclusions.
Seems apropos that this just came across my RSS feed...
http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-13-cases-measles-vaccinations-decline-200625088.html
Yes, all this data that proves the point beyond all doubt. But when questioned,there is no debate of scientific merit or discussion of flaws, real or perceived, in the data.
That is your statement that I addressed. You pointed that 'when questioned' there is 'no debate of the data.'
I supplied the result of one of the most damning arguments against the data, which ended up agreeing with the data. I made no further extrapolation.
I never stated the climate wasn't changing. It is. The data shows a warming trend.
Now it's not about the data? It's not about debating the scientific merit of the data?
Now you wish to amend your remarks, or, perhaps more bluntly and accurately, "change your bullshit statement?"
Make up your mind already.
I hate doing other people's work for them...
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer.ars
But when questioned, there is no debate of scientific merit or discussion of flaws, real or perceived, in the data.
Have...have you even looked? I'm going to assume you haven't and are just parroting an argument you heard from someone you agree with.
Unfortunately both sides of this subject have gotten far too emotional to even consider the possibility that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
I know, on one side we've got loads of data, models, research... On the other side, denial.
If only we took half the data and half the denial, we'd ALL be right!
Space, sadly, doesn't even have oil exploration going for it.
Considering Monroe's buried in a crypt and not in a grave, there would be no need to bring spades.
Sure, it's one of the more obscure bits to get upset at the TSA over, but geeze, let's not bother doing ANY legwork here!
It's also the #1 cause of death. Here we are, wasting our time on heart disease and cancer...
The best part of your post is that it ISN'T the same committee, you blithering idiot of a troll.
Because the proof of a good writer is the socio-political environment they lived through? Not the actual content of their prose?
Then again, given the most recent Laureate (a Swedish poet who, due to his being Swedish, had been a front runner for years, with reporters camping outside his house the day of the announcement (which is just embarrassing for everyone involved, I think)), you're probably more accurate on how to predict the Committee.
Ahh, yes, Moby-Dick.
Damned if I can remember *anything* about the plot of that story, but if I somehow get thrown in a time warp back to the 1800s on a whaler, by God I'll be able to strip a whale and bubble the fat off like a BOSS.
he didn't really change the literary or social landscape of his day (which is what the Nobel committee usually looks for)
That's what they SAY they look for...but, really, who gets more critical aplomb today?
J.R.R. Tolkien or Ivo Andric?
Well, except speed tape isn't duct tape...so, -1 Misleading Subject.
I think I have (I've had to do it with Java), but that's part of the thing...I *tried* that on the Win7 box. (How I got from .NET to the Update Agent, who the hell knows...and I pity the poor saps less knowledgeable than I who also have to deal with this.)
At least when you un- and reinstall something on XP, it more often than not fixes the issue. (If it doesn't, it likely wasn't the issue.) It just seems more and more the case fixing something on W7 becomes an utter nightmare; I have to fight tooth and nail with the OS to get any progress made.
I won't argue that XP can go arse over tits, but I never got as irate over it as I have been with my Win7 system. XP would just make me sigh despondently, and, accepting fate, I'd get a drink while the progress bars finish.
So, over the weekend, I tried to update Curse Client on my Win7 system. It required installing the .NET 3.5 Framework Client.
It took me two bloody hours to get it to install properly. Tried the redist, tried Windows Update, remove and reinstall, nothing. I ended up having to find, download, and reinstall the update agent itself (because I can't get it off the update.microsoft site; THAT, in its infinite wisdom simply tells you to "use the Control Panel icon" which is such a brilliant help, never once assuming, hey, if they're visiting the webpage maybe there's a problem with their "Windows Update"? Naaaaaaah... ) to get the .NET stuff to install properly.
On my XP system, it Just Works.
So, thank you, Win7. Thank you for protecting me from myself.
If I wanted my dick held for me every single time I pee, I'd get a Mac...