My computer has a display problem (never buy a Mac Mini, they suck), and I didn't catch the error, I meant to say 10000. I'm at work now, so I have my nice iMac that actually uses word wrap properly in text boxes.
The overwhelming majority of climatologists say whatever they need to to get funding. I can't imagine that they get much money from private companies. Taking an unpopular position risks becoming an outcast. In fact, the same type of blistering attack you have put on me is EXACTLY the reason why there is such an "overwhelming majority" opinion.
Those are a few of the inventions that have come from fundamental research into a new type of catalytic antimicrobial. It can be incorporated into just about any type of polymer, which means it can be put into just about any kind of implant. We're now working with a company that will apply our technology to ceramic and metal implants. The dental sealants are scheduled for worldwide release on May 1st of this year. I'd suggest you get in line by April.
You can't make that argument with the vast majority of experiments, only the ones that have n=1.
Show me the model that tells me what the average global temperature is going to be next year given X carbon output, and whatever other variables, and we'll see. I haven't seen it. If you can find it, it will convince me.
I can't be convinced by conceited bluster. The scientific establishment has been wrong or stuck in their ways too many times to put total faith in it. The only thing you can trust is the data, and that when it is collected in a verifiable, repeatable way. The argument for global warming strikes me as more of a metaphysical problem, because it can't really be tested, except by attempting to predict the future (which is what science is all about). I'm more used to working with chemicals, where you can do a lot of experiments without screwing up the results, so the idea of trying to definitively say that man causes global warming seems like trying to repair a car engine while driving down the highway, or like doing major surgery on yourself in the middle of a triathlon.
If you actually want to convince someone, appeal to their logic or their emotions. You have attempted to appeal to logic while simultaneously personally insulting the person you would convince. This does not work, unless your opponent can calm down enough to see what is happening, which I wasn't until just now. In fact, I don't think you wanted to convince anyone but yourself, with that little flamefest of yours.
Quite far back. Read up on dendrochronology, ice cores, etc.
Dendrochronology only goes back a few hundred years, a thousand at most, while ice cores only record climate at the poles, assuming you can derive significant climactic information in that manner (not a geoscientist). Give me a time period of 1000 years, and we'll talk.
Absolute bollocks. And I speak as a scientist.
You're a bad one, then, or a liar. Just because political appointees say that humans cause global warming doesn't make it so. There is room for discussion.
Probably true, if this is an example of your critical thinking skills.
Whatever you say, troll boy. Let me know what you think next time you have a family member not die from an infected catheter, or when you never get cavities or other tooth decay again because of my anti-microbial sealant, or when your girlfriend doesn't get cancer from her breast implants..
You can't say anything for sure even with multiple subjects and controls, but you can often draw some pretty convincing conclusions.
You can, but you can easily manipulate those conclusions to fit with your pre-conceived world view. When there isn't enough data, you can't even tell when you yourself are being biased, much less when someone else is.
Entirely wrong. I don't think I've ever read a scientific paper that didn't have a conclusions section.
There's not enough data to draw real conclusions on global warming. The only thing we can do is build models and see if they predict the future. If we manage to make one that gets it right more than 50% of the time, then we can look at hte variables and
see if it's humanity's fault or not.
False, see above.
We have data, but it's not GOOD data, ie worldwide direct observation.
We have vast amounts of data about the climate. Or are you seriously trying to argue that we can't draw conclusions because we only have one Earth? If so, presumably you think we can't infer anything about the Big Bang because there was only one of them.
The Big Bang was a historical event. Historical events are different from continuing processes. The part about having what is essentially one data point is that the less than 100 years we have had good observations of climate is about the same as having a single data point when compared the geological time scales.
I'm a scientist. You're a fantasist if you're not a troll.
What kind? The kind that repeats what he's told is true without question? Must be. The kind that draws wild conclusions from studies with sorely limited amounts of data? Probably. The kind that doesn't really understand the
scientific method? Definitely.
Actually, I did. The paper fails to take into account the natural temperature buffering capacity of Earth. When you add acid to a heavily buffered solution, you don't see much change in pH, at least until you overcome the buffering capacity, at which point there is a sudden change.
In addition, it doesn't take into account that there is more than one sunspot cycle. The 11 year one is the shortest, while there are other cycles.
In addition, it should be noted that many of the greatest civilizations began when the Earth was 1-2 degrees C warmer than it is today (ref).
Global warming would extend the US grain belt up into Canada. The land there is as fertile as any other place on the planet, and would easily be able to feed two-three times the current world population BY ITSELF.
What does your friend say when he realizes that the car is off, and they have, in fact, been sitting in a parking lot for the last six hours, and it is now 140 degrees in the car? Maybe there's some sort of "natural cycle" where the sun sometimes shines on the car, and sometimes doesn't. Certainly the sun couldn't be causing it, it's so far away!
And we have detailed records of temperature worldwide for how far back?
Seriously, any scientist who tells you that humans cause global warming, or says that the current warming trend isn't part of a natural cycle isn't acting like a scientist. What we have here is a single, highly complex system. No controls, with n=1. If I tried to do an experiment under such circumstances, I'd be the laughing stock of the scientific community when I reported my results. The fact is that without controls, and without multiple subjects, you can't say ANYTHING for sure. All you can do is report your observations. We don't even have good observations going back 100 years, much less a thousand or a hundred thousand or a hundred million. How is anyone supposed to draw conclusions from what is essentially a single data point?
They don't deserve aid until they rise up and cast off the chains of oppression and poverty placed upon them by Mugabe.
Zimbabwe is a testament to the evils that stem from a cult of personality and the corruption it seems to promote.
As for Darfur, it's pointless to even try to provide food aid for victims of ethnic cleansing, unless you provide them with weapons as well. Their oppressors will just come in and take it from them, possibly killing them and the aid workers in the meantime.
Everyone is harping on the mini black holes, which most evidence seems to suggest won't be a problem (as high energy cosmic rays do the same thing all the time), but I'm more concerned about the Bose Supernova.
Has anyone ever done an experiment by putting a powerful, rapidly switching magnetic field next to a bit of Bose-Einstein condensate to see if it, I don't know, annihilates the city the experiment is carried out in? Better to lose a city than have an Asia size crater where Europe used to be.
It's ABSOLUTELY NOT capitalism. The US doesn't have a capitalist system, it has a corporatist system. Corporations are in bed with the politicians, and what they spawn together takes away our freedoms, both personal and economical.
Another name for such a system is fascism. It's not pretty, as we have seen all too often.
Yes, but we haven't been in any total wars, like WWI or WWII. We have only participated in relatively small conflicts, generally civil wars.
That shouldn't be taken as any sort of defense of US military policy whatsoever. It's just an observation that there haven't been any world wars or even major regional conflicts in areas with at least one nuclear armed party.
That might be the case with true communism where there is very little or no central government. But that never happens. Communism==centralized economic planning. The constitution does not authorize such an overabundance of government intervention. However, the General Welfare clause could be twisted over time toward the interpretation that it does authorize such extreme intervention, so long as it is in the name of "the people".
Such interpretations have allowed for hte formation of several central banks, including the current Federal Reserve scheme, which amount to centralized planning, as they control the money supplie as well as the interest rates. Those guys caused the current Depression (yes, it is a Depression), and because we continually reward their failure, it may last longer than the Great Depression. Hell, the writer of the Constitution (Jefferson) himself said that banks are more dangerous than standing armies, so one would think that these so-called constitutional scholars would understand the author, and understand that it was never the intent of the author to authorize such extravagence on the part of the Federal Government.
I would by far prefer to "err" on the side of individual freedom. I guess you think it's proper to have had a fifth of the black population in prison at one time or another for a crime that had no victim?
These guys have repeatedly violated the spirit of the Constitution. And by "violated" I mean "raped".
I really hope Obama changes things for the better. If not, I'm about ready to tear the whole thing down and start over.
Mod parent up. The problem here is big government forcing their way into our lives. The so called "conservatives" who were in charge weren't really conservatives, but rather fascists (pro-war, anti-freedom) masquerading as liberals (big spending) masquerading as conservatives (outrage over anything having to do with sex).
It was the worst of every major ideology of the 20th century all rolled up into one hideous bloated monstrosity.
Sure, like 1984 was just a novel. Except that both ARE COMING TRUE. I think they have a word for that. Prophesy. Yes, that's it. Perhaps we should see what happens at the end of each book to see what is probably going to happen to this country.
Put all the change in one hand and shit in the other.
I wonder which one will fill up first?
I would be a lot happier if Obama supporters understood what the whole "free speech" thing was about, and didn't just run around trying to silence dissent. If Obama turns out to be a bad guy, he could easily ride this wave of universal support into the Fourth Reich. Let's hope that he's as good as he seems. If he isn't, this country won't survive long enough to see him leave office.
General welfare has been stretched to encompass all action by an all-powerful government. Hell, we could move into outright Communism and state property with the current interpretation. It's outrageous.
Slashdot Mirror
With freeway onramps for arms, and a heart as black as coal!
Eh? We rose up and cast off the chains of British oppression, and then we got aid from the French. It didn't happen the other way around.
My computer has a display problem (never buy a Mac Mini, they suck), and I didn't catch the error, I meant to say 10000. I'm at work now, so I have my nice iMac that actually uses word wrap properly in text boxes.
The overwhelming majority of climatologists say whatever they need to to get funding. I can't imagine that they get much money from private companies. Taking an unpopular position risks becoming an outcast. In fact, the same type of blistering attack you have put on me is EXACTLY the reason why there is such an "overwhelming majority" opinion.
Those are a few of the inventions that have come from fundamental research into a new type of catalytic antimicrobial. It can be incorporated into just about any type of polymer, which means it can be put into just about any kind of implant. We're now working with a company that will apply our technology to ceramic and metal implants. The dental sealants are scheduled for worldwide release on May 1st of this year. I'd suggest you get in line by April.
You can't make that argument with the vast majority of experiments, only the ones that have n=1.
Show me the model that tells me what the average global temperature is going to be next year given X carbon output, and whatever other variables, and we'll see. I haven't seen it. If you can find it, it will convince me.
I can't be convinced by conceited bluster. The scientific establishment has been wrong or stuck in their ways too many times to put total faith in it. The only thing you can trust is the data, and that when it is collected in a verifiable, repeatable way. The argument for global warming strikes me as more of a metaphysical problem, because it can't really be tested, except by attempting to predict the future (which is what science is all about). I'm more used to working with chemicals, where you can do a lot of experiments without screwing up the results, so the idea of trying to definitively say that man causes global warming seems like trying to repair a car engine while driving down the highway, or like doing major surgery on yourself in the middle of a triathlon.
If you actually want to convince someone, appeal to their logic or their emotions. You have attempted to appeal to logic while simultaneously personally insulting the person you would convince. This does not work, unless your opponent can calm down enough to see what is happening, which I wasn't until just now. In fact, I don't think you wanted to convince anyone but yourself, with that little flamefest of yours.
Quite far back. Read up on dendrochronology, ice cores, etc.
Dendrochronology only goes back a few hundred years, a thousand at most, while ice cores only record climate at the poles, assuming you can derive significant climactic information in that manner (not a geoscientist). Give me a time period of 1000 years, and we'll talk.
Absolute bollocks. And I speak as a scientist.
You're a bad one, then, or a liar. Just because political appointees say that humans cause global warming doesn't make it so. There is room for discussion.
Probably true, if this is an example of your critical thinking skills.
Whatever you say, troll boy. Let me know what you think next time you have a family member not die from an infected catheter, or when you never get cavities or other tooth decay again because of my anti-microbial sealant, or when your girlfriend doesn't get cancer from her breast implants..
You can't say anything for sure even with multiple subjects and controls, but you can often draw some pretty convincing conclusions.
You can, but you can easily manipulate those conclusions to fit with your pre-conceived world view. When there isn't enough data, you can't even tell when you yourself are being biased, much less when someone else is.
Entirely wrong. I don't think I've ever read a scientific paper that didn't have a conclusions section.
There's not enough data to draw real conclusions on global warming. The only thing we can do is build models and see if they predict the future. If we manage to make one that gets it right more than 50% of the time, then we can look at hte variables and see if it's humanity's fault or not.
False, see above.
We have data, but it's not GOOD data, ie worldwide direct observation.
We have vast amounts of data about the climate. Or are you seriously trying to argue that we can't draw conclusions because we only have one Earth? If so, presumably you think we can't infer anything about the Big Bang because there was only one of them.
The Big Bang was a historical event. Historical events are different from continuing processes. The part about having what is essentially one data point is that the less than 100 years we have had good observations of climate is about the same as having a single data point when compared the geological time scales.
I'm a scientist. You're a fantasist if you're not a troll.
What kind? The kind that repeats what he's told is true without question? Must be. The kind that draws wild conclusions from studies with sorely limited amounts of data? Probably. The kind that doesn't really understand the scientific method? Definitely.
Actually, I did. The paper fails to take into account the natural temperature buffering capacity of Earth. When you add acid to a heavily buffered solution, you don't see much change in pH, at least until you overcome the buffering capacity, at which point there is a sudden change.
In addition, it doesn't take into account that there is more than one sunspot cycle. The 11 year one is the shortest, while there are other cycles.
In addition, it should be noted that many of the greatest civilizations began when the Earth was 1-2 degrees C warmer than it is today (ref).
Global warming would extend the US grain belt up into Canada. The land there is as fertile as any other place on the planet, and would easily be able to feed two-three times the current world population BY ITSELF.
What does your friend say when he realizes that the car is off, and they have, in fact, been sitting in a parking lot for the last six hours, and it is now 140 degrees in the car? Maybe there's some sort of "natural cycle" where the sun sometimes shines on the car, and sometimes doesn't. Certainly the sun couldn't be causing it, it's so far away!
Geez.
And we have detailed records of temperature worldwide for how far back?
Seriously, any scientist who tells you that humans cause global warming, or says that the current warming trend isn't part of a natural cycle isn't acting like a scientist. What we have here is a single, highly complex system. No controls, with n=1. If I tried to do an experiment under such circumstances, I'd be the laughing stock of the scientific community when I reported my results. The fact is that without controls, and without multiple subjects, you can't say ANYTHING for sure. All you can do is report your observations. We don't even have good observations going back 100 years, much less a thousand or a hundred thousand or a hundred million. How is anyone supposed to draw conclusions from what is essentially a single data point?
IAAS (I am a scientist).
They don't deserve aid until they rise up and cast off the chains of oppression and poverty placed upon them by Mugabe.
Zimbabwe is a testament to the evils that stem from a cult of personality and the corruption it seems to promote.
As for Darfur, it's pointless to even try to provide food aid for victims of ethnic cleansing, unless you provide them with weapons as well. Their oppressors will just come in and take it from them, possibly killing them and the aid workers in the meantime.
Everyone is harping on the mini black holes, which most evidence seems to suggest won't be a problem (as high energy cosmic rays do the same thing all the time), but I'm more concerned about the Bose Supernova.
Has anyone ever done an experiment by putting a powerful, rapidly switching magnetic field next to a bit of Bose-Einstein condensate to see if it, I don't know, annihilates the city the experiment is carried out in? Better to lose a city than have an Asia size crater where Europe used to be.
In Soviet Europe, France wins trip to everyone!
It's ABSOLUTELY NOT capitalism. The US doesn't have a capitalist system, it has a corporatist system. Corporations are in bed with the politicians, and what they spawn together takes away our freedoms, both personal and economical.
Another name for such a system is fascism. It's not pretty, as we have seen all too often.
Yes, but we haven't been in any total wars, like WWI or WWII. We have only participated in relatively small conflicts, generally civil wars.
That shouldn't be taken as any sort of defense of US military policy whatsoever. It's just an observation that there haven't been any world wars or even major regional conflicts in areas with at least one nuclear armed party.
If it's an add, how do we subtract?
That might be the case with true communism where there is very little or no central government. But that never happens. Communism==centralized economic planning. The constitution does not authorize such an overabundance of government intervention. However, the General Welfare clause could be twisted over time toward the interpretation that it does authorize such extreme intervention, so long as it is in the name of "the people".
Such interpretations have allowed for hte formation of several central banks, including the current Federal Reserve scheme, which amount to centralized planning, as they control the money supplie as well as the interest rates. Those guys caused the current Depression (yes, it is a Depression), and because we continually reward their failure, it may last longer than the Great Depression. Hell, the writer of the Constitution (Jefferson) himself said that banks are more dangerous than standing armies, so one would think that these so-called constitutional scholars would understand the author, and understand that it was never the intent of the author to authorize such extravagence on the part of the Federal Government.
I would by far prefer to "err" on the side of individual freedom. I guess you think it's proper to have had a fifth of the black population in prison at one time or another for a crime that had no victim?
These guys have repeatedly violated the spirit of the Constitution. And by "violated" I mean "raped".
I really hope Obama changes things for the better. If not, I'm about ready to tear the whole thing down and start over.
It's the only type of orgy Slashdotters get invited to, so we have to take advantage of them when we can.
It's a quote from Mein Kampf, doofus. Google the whole thing to see for yourself.
Mod parent up. The problem here is big government forcing their way into our lives. The so called "conservatives" who were in charge weren't really conservatives, but rather fascists (pro-war, anti-freedom) masquerading as liberals (big spending) masquerading as conservatives (outrage over anything having to do with sex).
It was the worst of every major ideology of the 20th century all rolled up into one hideous bloated monstrosity.
And they're already dumb, so we'd have a trifecta!
Sure, like 1984 was just a novel. Except that both ARE COMING TRUE. I think they have a word for that. Prophesy. Yes, that's it. Perhaps we should see what happens at the end of each book to see what is probably going to happen to this country.
Sweet, so lets keep "compromising" until we have one branch of government and a nice fuhrer we can all get behind. Great idea. Just wonderful.
There was always hope in the US.
For example, I was hoping that Bush would choke on another pretzel, but just die this time. Sadly, it didn't get us anywhere.
Put all the change in one hand and shit in the other.
I wonder which one will fill up first?
I would be a lot happier if Obama supporters understood what the whole "free speech" thing was about, and didn't just run around trying to silence dissent. If Obama turns out to be a bad guy, he could easily ride this wave of universal support into the Fourth Reich. Let's hope that he's as good as he seems. If he isn't, this country won't survive long enough to see him leave office.
General welfare has been stretched to encompass all action by an all-powerful government. Hell, we could move into outright Communism and state property with the current interpretation. It's outrageous.