It boils down to people wanting to benefit from pollution (economically) without having to pay the consequences. Unfortunately, they don't see the damage to their health from a dirty environment.
There's zero damage to their health from CO2 output. Because it's not "dirty" or "artificial" or a "pollutant". It's a natural trace gas that plants crave.
People want technology to overcome problems. And it can.
Taxation, totalitarianism, restrictions, and repression don't overcome problems. Innovation does. The world and life aren't zero sum game.
This has absolutely nothing do to with dark matter. So, yes it is a coincidence. And an approximation.
They're improving their technique for observing distant galaxies. Which doesn't in any way invalidate observations of (astronomically) very close galaxies. Which is what we base the existence of dark matter on.
Merely 90% of the Visible Universe that we couldn't see before.
The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) fraction of the actual physical Universe. The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.
Desktops will always be much more powerful than phones, and there will always be ways for the "bulk of people" to utilize that extra power.
Why on Earth won't the future be like now in this sense - mobile small computers (smart phones, netbooks, tablet pcs) that you can lose or break reasonably easily. Bulkier boxes sitting at home, that never go anywhere (not exactly a huge drain on the space inside people's home...where's the push to plug a tiny phone into your huge monitor)?
And in the middle laptops.
And why won't there be some "cloud" computing and some decidedly non-cloud computing? Do people in the future lose all concept of redundancy?
If anything, I expect a more heterogeneous range of computing devices/methods in the future, not less.
Your example doesn't meet both conditions. Having an attempted "research boycott of two journals that published the study" isn't receiving the "same weight".
Having the "same weight" would be appearing in an IPCC report along side the paper that this was attacking (the Mann et al "Mike's Nature trick" paper).
So when you see hacked emails showing scientists dissing people like them, or McIntyre, or any of that ilk, realize that the scientists *really do* think that these people are putting out garbage and have vested agendas.
Granted, but the leaked emails and documents seem to allegedly show scientists that *really are* putting out garbage and have vested agendas. And they're receiving public money. And trillions of public money rest upon their "science".
And when you say, "tree rings!", I ask, "How precise are they?" A cool but sunny summer, or hot but dusty/cloudy/smoky summer could produce anomalous results.
Some carefully selected tree ring series are very, very accurate until 1st January 1960 (just after the calibration period) when they become massively inaccurate, and MUST NOT BE PLOTTED.
There was once a time that Russia would have just kept schtum. How many UFO reports are due to similar failed firings prior to the end of the Cold War?
Hopefully none because people had worked out what this was as soon as it happened.
Everyone without a tinfoil hat knew it was a failed rocket of some kind.
They can't attack the science, so they attack the scientists.
This statement is utterly false.
Read climate audit. Read about the divergence problem. Read about unreproducible graphs. Read about bizarre weightings. Read about manipulated data from now "lost" raw data. Read about white noise input yielding "increasing temperatures" as output.
I'm bemused but not surprised by such a post being modded "informative".
And nothing on Wikileaks invalidates any of the work done at CRU or any other climate research institute.
No, on the contrary, in science, deliberate manipulation of data to give the results you wanted from the beginning invalidates your results. Sorry. And the emails are not just internal CRU emails. And the manipulation of data was not just by the CRU.
The reality of all that hoopla is the people doing the agitating had long since decided that not only can the climate not change.
The "climate not changing ever" is precisely the opposite of what "skeptics" argue.
Flattening any unwanted bumps before the industrial age, OTOH, is precisely what the AGW desire
And this is what they do, in an undocumented way, which can't be reproduced from the raw data, which they are loathe to release anyway.
If climate scientists are right, then there's a real chance that millions and millions will die fighting for their lives. On the other hand, if they're wrong, we've been forced* to sit through a 90 minute slideshow. Clearly these are events with comparable significance.
If Christians are right, there's a real chance the unbelievers were burn in hell for eternity.
If they're wrong, you just have to get baptized just once anyway. Ergo, everyone should be baptized and a Christian.
As a species humans already appropriate well over half the productive ecological capacity on this planet (estimates I've seen range to as high as 90%), so anything we do to appreciably diminish that ecological capacity will hit one species particularly hard.
I'm sure you're willing to provide cites which contains hard numbers to support this.
Especially because historically such claims were made when the human population was less than a fifth what it is now, i.e. they were flat out wrong.
Also would you mind giving cites which show that changing climate will have a net detrimental effect on human food production, and not the other way around?
I'm a UK musician and don't support this. Also, people can legally download everything I do for free, if they want (big if).
But people should listen to more totally free music, eg like this guy who is really talented
http://www.last.fm/music/Marc+A.+Pullen/ and not big labeled crap like "Lily Allen".
Slashdot Mirror
It can -- but Gaia's fix will involve the die-off of most or all of humanity.
Not doing too well on that so far, is it?
Enjoy your pseudo-religious "Armageddon of the heathens" fantasies though.
It boils down to people wanting to benefit from pollution (economically) without having to pay the consequences. Unfortunately, they don't see the damage to their health from a dirty environment.
There's zero damage to their health from CO2 output. Because it's not "dirty" or "artificial" or a "pollutant". It's a natural trace gas that plants crave.
People want technology to overcome problems. And it can.
Taxation, totalitarianism, restrictions, and repression don't overcome problems. Innovation does. The world and life aren't zero sum game.
Why can't you hysterical luddites accept that?
Why can't "Gaia" fix its own problems itself?
Good way to "thrash out" a scientific theory by using a smear word to label those on the other side, which is also applied to certain neo-nazis.
The morality of war is that the winners write the history books. And all wars are moral from the victor's viewpoint.
I used caps so that even the clueless should recognize it as a technical term.
This has absolutely nothing do to with dark matter. So, yes it is a coincidence. And an approximation.
They're improving their technique for observing distant galaxies. Which doesn't in any way invalidate observations of (astronomically) very close galaxies. Which is what we base the existence of dark matter on.
Merely 90% of the Visible Universe that we couldn't see before.
The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) fraction of the actual physical Universe. The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.
Yeah, with the people starving to death in the gulags being able to vote on the next annual tractor quota.
Desktops will always be much more powerful than phones, and there will always be ways for the "bulk of people" to utilize that extra power.
Why on Earth won't the future be like now in this sense - mobile small computers (smart phones, netbooks, tablet pcs) that you can lose or break reasonably easily. Bulkier boxes sitting at home, that never go anywhere (not exactly a huge drain on the space inside people's home...where's the push to plug a tiny phone into your huge monitor)?
And in the middle laptops.
And why won't there be some "cloud" computing and some decidedly non-cloud computing? Do people in the future lose all concept of redundancy?
If anything, I expect a more heterogeneous range of computing devices/methods in the future, not less.
Pearl on Paths
Diamond on Driveways
Topaz on Tracks
Sapphire on Streets
Aquamarine on Avenues
Which climate skeptics are on the payroll of "big oil" and are getting the "same weight" as pro-AGW-IPCC scientists?
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/124642_warming02.html
Your example doesn't meet both conditions. Having an attempted "research boycott of two journals that published the study" isn't receiving the "same weight".
Having the "same weight" would be appearing in an IPCC report along side the paper that this was attacking (the Mann et al "Mike's Nature trick" paper).
So when you see hacked emails showing scientists dissing people like them, or McIntyre, or any of that ilk, realize that the scientists *really do* think that these people are putting out garbage and have vested agendas.
Granted, but the leaked emails and documents seem to allegedly show scientists that *really are* putting out garbage and have vested agendas. And they're receiving public money. And trillions of public money rest upon their "science".
Here we have climate change skeptics, on the payroll of big oil getting the same weight as scientists with real, irrefutable data
Perhaps you could back this up in some kind of way.
Which climate skeptics are on the payroll of "big oil" and are getting the "same weight" as pro-AGW-IPCC scientists?
What irrefutable data shows AGW to be true?
Look forward to your references, you're not just pulling this out of your ass, I'm sure. Heaven forfend.
And when you say, "tree rings!", I ask, "How precise are they?" A cool but sunny summer, or hot but dusty/cloudy/smoky summer could produce anomalous results.
Some carefully selected tree ring series are very, very accurate until 1st January 1960 (just after the calibration period) when they become massively inaccurate, and MUST NOT BE PLOTTED.
Also, "denialist" isn't a loaded, flamebait term.
My guess is actual physical survival of data > integrity > format issues, in terms of problems for "ancient" data.
There was once a time that Russia would have just kept schtum. How many UFO reports are due to similar failed firings prior to the end of the Cold War?
Hopefully none because people had worked out what this was as soon as it happened.
Everyone without a tinfoil hat knew it was a failed rocket of some kind.
as if you had the faintest clue about the practical nature of scientific research
Nice, you're both wrong and an ad hominem spouting hypocrite.
Maybe it's time to go back and see who is actually talking about science and who is issuing personal insults.
They can't attack the science, so they attack the scientists.
This statement is utterly false.
Read climate audit. Read about the divergence problem. Read about unreproducible graphs. Read about bizarre weightings. Read about manipulated data from now "lost" raw data. Read about white noise input yielding "increasing temperatures" as output.
There is much to attack in this "science".
And nothing on Wikileaks invalidates any of the work done at CRU or any other climate research institute.
No, on the contrary, in science, deliberate manipulation of data to give the results you wanted from the beginning invalidates your results. Sorry. And the emails are not just internal CRU emails. And the manipulation of data was not just by the CRU.
The reality of all that hoopla is the people doing the agitating had long since decided that not only can the climate not change.
The "climate not changing ever" is precisely the opposite of what "skeptics" argue.
Flattening any unwanted bumps before the industrial age, OTOH, is precisely what the AGW desire
And this is what they do, in an undocumented way, which can't be reproduced from the raw data, which they are loathe to release anyway.
Not that suspicious in itself - I've often used the word "trick" to refer to a clever shortcut with no deception whatsoever.
Yeah, I think the "hide" part is the suspicious bit.
It's hard to think of cases where hiding what your results are saying is still doing science.
If climate scientists are right, then there's a real chance that millions and millions will die fighting for their lives. On the other hand, if they're wrong, we've been forced* to sit through a 90 minute slideshow. Clearly these are events with comparable significance.
If Christians are right, there's a real chance the unbelievers were burn in hell for eternity.
If they're wrong, you just have to get baptized just once anyway. Ergo, everyone should be baptized and a Christian.
Science is fun, kids.
As a species humans already appropriate well over half the productive ecological capacity on this planet (estimates I've seen range to as high as 90%), so anything we do to appreciably diminish that ecological capacity will hit one species particularly hard.
I'm sure you're willing to provide cites which contains hard numbers to support this.
Especially because historically such claims were made when the human population was less than a fifth what it is now, i.e. they were flat out wrong.
Also would you mind giving cites which show that changing climate will have a net detrimental effect on human food production, and not the other way around?
Probably got modded up because it was both entertaining and pointed out an apparent glaring hypocrisy.
Exposing hypocrisy is a powerful tool in influencing people's views.
I'm a UK musician and don't support this. Also, people can legally download everything I do for free, if they want (big if).
But people should listen to more totally free music, eg like this guy who is really talented http://www.last.fm/music/Marc+A.+Pullen/ and not big labeled crap like "Lily Allen".
Both sides spent themselves dry funding responses to every conceivable attack
No, only one side did.