Development of Artic Oil Fields Put On Hold Because of Hacked E-Mails
Bret Cahill
climate research unit at East Anglia was proof enough that global
warming was a scam and that there was no sense in fighting the
Canadians for oil that neither could drill.
See the full article at:
www.desperaterightardswillbelieveanything.com
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue to
spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid fart
clearing a room.
Bret Cahill
www.desperaterightardswillbelieveanything.com
You think that'll be a box office hit?
www.desperaterightardswriteexcitingscripts.com
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
Among the information that was leaked is something
that indicates a _real_ problem with the software that
was written at the CRU to make predictions regarding
AGW:
As the leaked messages, and especially the
HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way
around technical circles, two things happened:
first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia
started taking a close look at the quality of the
CRU's code, and second, they began to feel
sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three
years (including working weekends) trying to
make sense of code that appeared to be
undocumented and buggy, while representing
the core of CRU's climate model.
One programmer highlighted the error of relying on
computer code that, if it generates an error message,
continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another
debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a
calculation that should always generate a positive number
was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third
concluded:
"I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get
data from undocumented and completely messy sources."
Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran
code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says:
"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY
ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says:
"Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets
rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr
low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding
longer time scales!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shouldn't the code used to make predictions about climate
be peer reviewed? Shouldn't it be open source? It's not as
if they're going to sell this crappy code, after all.
And more:
The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks,
and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of
dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data.
These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual
interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now
replicate its own past findings.
That is a big problem. The IPCC report, which is the most widely
relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs
of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-
benefit analysis is totally worthless
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
prediction he is referencing.
Shrikeback
>
> Shouldn't the code used to make predictions about climate
> be peer reviewed? Shouldn't it be open source? It's not as
> if they're going to sell this crappy code, after all.
>
> And more:
>
> The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks,
> and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of
> dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data.
> These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual
> interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now
> replicate its own past findings.
>
> That is a big problem. The IPCC report, which is the most widely
> relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs
> of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-
> benefit analysis is totally worthless
>
> So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
> gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
> show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
> prediction he is referencing.
Ooops. I forgot the attribution (having a Cahill moment.)
From the Atlantic, no less; a real hotbed of anti-progressive
abortion protesters.
Shrikeback
> You think that'll be a box office hit?
Sure, why not? How many suckers actually paid to
go see the Day after Tomorrow, wherein America gets
its comeuppance when global warming causes the
Mother of all Cold Spells and sends ice wolves into
New York City.
Anyway, you dodged the Question:
Does crappy Fortran code precede each and every
silly-ass greenshirt Incontinent Truther agit-
propumentary?
Bret Cahill
www.desperaterightardswillbelieveanything.com
> > Burned out tree-humping gaia-fearing acid casualty hippie
> > greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
> > their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue to
> > spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid fart
> > clearing a room.
You think that'll be a box office hit?
www.desperaterightardswriteexcitingscripts.com
> Among the information that was leaked is something
> that indicates a _real_ problem with the software that
> was written at the CRU to make predictions regarding
> AGW:
Does this mean they have to stop growing crops in Greenland?
. . .
> So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
> gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
> show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
> prediction he is referencing.
Try not to spree but if you must spree, spree local.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
> > > Burned out tree-humping gaia-fearing acid casualty hippie
> > > greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
> > > their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue to
> > > spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid fart
> > > clearing a room.
>
> You think that'll be a box office hit?
Why not? How many suckers went to see _An Incontinent
Truth_ (or How I Learned to Wet Myself While Flying Private
Jets to Ecogreenshirt Conferences-- a Personal Confession
by Al Gore.)
Wait, this all sounds familiar. Deja vu.
This Fortran code seems to have entered an infinite loop. Let's
look inside to see:
DO
CALL 911WasAnIsideJob
WHILE (hellHasNotFrozenOver)
Just as I thought. Was this code offshored to a North
Korea gulag?
> > Among the information that was leaked is something
> > that indicates a _real_ problem with the software that
> > was written at the CRU to make predictions regarding
> > AGW:
>
> Does this mean they have to stop growing crops in Greenland?
Naw, they can just leave them preserved in the
ice, along with the AGW leprechauns and
extraterrestrials.
> > So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
> > gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
> > show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
> > prediction he is referencing.
>
> Try not to spree but if you must spree, spree local.
You need to tell that to your Congresscritter, who may
have plans on spreeing taxpayer moneys all the way to
Tierra del Fuego. It's all about Copenhagen (which causes
mouth cancer, don't you know.)
Anyway, you dodged the Question:
Does crappy Fortran code precede each and every
hysterical prediction made by a greenshirted tree
humper?
"Software climate models are like Ouija boards."
Richard S. Lindzen
And now, of course, we know that they are poorly
constructed Ouija boards at that, as if printed on
toilet paper duct-taped to a chunk of ragged particle
board.
Bret Cahill
> > > > greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
> > > > their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue to
> > > > spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid fart
> > > > clearing a room.
>
> > You think that'll be a box office hit?
>
> Why not?
It would be competing against a better fantasy:
If hacked Emails can keep Artic ice from melting they can power all
ground transportation!
The best part is the fuel can be delivered via the internet!
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
> > > > > Burned out tree-humping gaia-fearing acid casualty hippie
> > > > > greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
> > > > > their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue to
> > > > > spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid fart
> > > > > clearing a room.
>
> > > You think that'll be a box office hit?
>
> > Why not?
>
> It would be competing against a better fantasy:
>
> If hacked Emails can keep Artic ice from melting they can power all
> ground transportation!
There's no need to do anything to keep Arctic ice from
melting. NASA is predicting decades of global cooling
anyway. Enough to refreeze Gorezilla in the ice so he
won't threaten the city of Kyoto with destruction ever again.
Of course, we have to wonder whether these predictions were
made with the same sort of crappy Fortran that all the hysterical
predictions of greenshirts are based on.
Oh well, it could be that NASA is right, and we're at a tipping
point when it comes to global warming hysteria. Cash in now,
because if NASA _is_ right, and things cool off enough over
the next two decades, AGW is going to rouse nothing but
yawns from John Q Bonghit.
John Stafford
<717ce2f5-440d-442b...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Shrikeback <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
And a happy Thanksgiving to you, too!
John Stafford
<a0a22c77-da66-46b2...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Shrikeback <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. That would be COBOL.
John Stafford
<922308a6-32de-4349...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Shrikeback <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
> gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
> show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
> prediction he is referencing.
Excellent points. Thank you. Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or
SPSS procedures? Could it be that they do not want to risk highly
qualified peer reviews?
Rod Speed
> Shrikeback <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote
>> So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
>> gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
>> show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
>> prediction he is referencing.
> Excellent points. Thank you.
> Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or SPSS procedures?
Because you cant do climate modelling that way.
> Could it be that they do not want to risk highly qualified peer reviews?
Mindless conspiracy theory.
Shrikeback
> In article
> <922308a6-32de-4349-abad-649aa646c...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
> > gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
> > show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
> > prediction he is referencing.
>
> Excellent points. Thank you. Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or
> SPSS procedures? Could it be that they do not want to risk highly
> qualified peer reviews?
It could be. Personally, I don't see any reason not to
publish the source code for climate models online.
Shrikeback
> In article
>
> Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Burned out tree-humping gaia-fearing acid casualty hippie
> > greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
> > their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue to
> > spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid fart
> > clearing a room.
>
> And a happy Thanksgiving to you, too!
You'll have to excuse me.
I figured you already killfiled me, on account of
my inability to avoid taking Cahill's stink bait,
but, as always, you are my Usenet conscience.
So excuse me, and Happy Thanksgiving. It feels
good to take a whole week off, I tell you.
Shrikeback
> John Stafford wrote
>
> > Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
> >> gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
> >> show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
> >> prediction he is referencing.
> > Excellent points. Thank you.
> > Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or SPSS procedures?
>
> Because you cant do climate modelling that way.
You can't do climate modeling with Quality Indicators?
Hmm. Interesting. So bugs are just the price of AGW.
> > Could it be that they do not want to risk highly qualified peer reviews?
>
> Mindless conspiracy theory.
There is no conspiracy theory neccessary. It's a matter of
self-interest. As Richard S. Lindzen of MIT has pointed out,
there would not be the level of funding for climate science if
it weren't for the alarm regarding climate change. Hence,
there is an incentive to inflate a tad. As Kuhns pointed out,
Science itself is a social activity.
John Stafford
<b492b43c-d055-45d7...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Shrikeback <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
To see the source code in question could truly do them in. Imagine the
smart mob of programmers around the world picking it apart. Whew! It
could be a historic event!
John Stafford
> John Stafford wrote
> Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or SPSS procedures?
> >
> > Because you cant do climate modelling that way.
You can't model with junk data. Begin with proofing the data, then
'model'. They never got to the very first step of research. Regardless,
one can model a great deal using SAS, or SPSS
John Stafford
> Mindless conspiracy theory.
Do not attribute to malice that which is most likely incompetence. They
were incompetent. No conspiracy.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> John Stafford wrote
>>> Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
>>>> gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs
>>>> to show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
>>>> prediction he is referencing.
>>> Excellent points. Thank you.
>>> Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or SPSS procedures?
>> Because you cant do climate modelling that way.
> You can't do climate modeling with Quality Indicators?
Nothing like as well as with code.
> Hmm. Interesting. So bugs are just the price of AGW.
>>> Could it be that they do not want to risk highly qualified peer reviews?
>> Mindless conspiracy theory.
> There is no conspiracy theory neccessary. It's a matter of self-interest.
How odd that they continue to have their papers peer reviewed.
> As Richard S. Lindzen of MIT has pointed out,
> there would not be the level of funding for climate science if
> it weren't for the alarm regarding climate change. Hence,
> there is an incentive to inflate a tad. As Kuhns pointed out,
> Science itself is a social activity.
Irrelevant to why they still are into peer review.
hal
<shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 10:50=A0am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Burned out tree-humping gaia-fearing acid casualty hippie
>> > > > > greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
>> > > > > their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue t=
>o
>> > > > > spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid far=
>t
>> > > > > clearing a room.
>>
>> > > You think that'll be a box office hit?
>>
>> > Why not? =A0
>>
>> It would be competing against a better fantasy:
>>
>> If hacked Emails can keep Artic ice from melting they can power all
>> ground transportation!
>
>There's no need to do anything to keep Arctic ice from
>melting. NASA is predicting decades of global cooling
>anyway.
Cite?
> Enough to refreeze Gorezilla in the ice so he
>won't threaten the city of Kyoto with destruction ever again.
>
>Of course, we have to wonder whether these predictions were
>made with the same sort of crappy Fortran that all the hysterical
>predictions of greenshirts are based on.
cite? I happen to know some of the people that wrote the climate
models and they are at least 10 times smarter than you.
>
>Oh well, it could be that NASA is right, and we're at a tipping
>point when it comes to global warming hysteria. Cash in now,
>because if NASA _is_ right, and things cool off enough over
>the next two decades,
cite? Just how can you claim NASA is right, when you don't even have
the data?
> AGW is going to rouse nothing but
>yawns from John Q Bonghit.
>
You're dumber than a post.
Rod Speed
Nothing like as well as with code.
Rod Speed
>>>> So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
>>>> gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
>>>> show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
>>>> prediction he is referencing.
>>> Excellent points. Thank you.
>>> Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or SPSS procedures?
>> Because you cant do climate modelling that way.
>>> Could it be that they do not want to risk highly qualified peer reviews?
>> Mindless conspiracy theory.
> Do not attribute to malice that which is most likely incompetence.
Never said a word about malice.
> They were incompetent. No conspiracy.
You were the one running that mindless line.
Eric Gisin
a pandemic of mental breakdowns among loony lefties and green shirts.
Esp among liberal arts fags posting from AOL.
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:78cd6e84-aa07-49b1...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Bret Cahill
> > climate research unit at East Anglia was proof enough that global
> > warming was a scam and that there was no sense in fighting the
> > Canadians for oil that neither could drill.
>
> > See the full article at:
>
> >www.desperaterightardswillbelieveanything.com
>
> >> Burned out tree-humping gaia-fearing acid casualty hippie
> >> greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
> >> their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue to
> >> spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid fart
> >> clearing a room.
> > You think that'll be a box office hit?
>
> >www.desperaterightardswriteexcitingscripts.com
Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
Bret Cahill
John Galt
You can indeed, but this is a very complex system.
I used to be involved in the supercomputing business. There are
typically more supercomputing cycles installed for
meteorlogic/climatologic applications than any other, with the possible
exception of geophysics.
The researchers we used to work with back in the 80's would tell you
without hesitation that climate and weather were simply too complicated
to model with any hope of precision, and that they were also quite far
from understanding the interaction of the variables well enough to
create such a model.
Then, suddenly, just a few years later, the same guys were in the news
telling the world that their models were so accurate and so precise that
we (collectively) needed to turn the world's econmomy upside down to
avert disaster.
I smelled a rat than, and I still do now. Doesn't mean that human
activity ISN'T causing climate change, but it DOES mean that these guys
simply do not know enough to predict it or model it with any accuracy.
JG
John Galt
I;m sure they are. That doesn't mean they're honest. This controversy is
one of scientific integrity, not intelligence.
BTW, if you really know some of these guys, could you get us a copy of
the code? Thanks.
JG
Bret Cahill
> > > gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
> > > show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
> > > prediction he is referencing.
>
> > Excellent points. Thank you. Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or
> > SPSS procedures? Could it be that they do not want to risk highly
> > qualified peer reviews?
>
> It could be. Personally, I don't see any reason not to
> publish the source code for climate models online.
If climate researchers want to influence public policy then they
better make the basis of all their arguments public.
Same with the bankers. If they want loans from the Federal Reserve
then they need to make all their accounts public, i.e., names,
transfers amounts, dates, etc.
Same with employers. If they want to do business with the public then
they need to make everything public, i. e., sales, marketing
strategies, former employees . . .
Bret Cahill
Les Cargill
<shakes magic 8-ball>
"ANSWER HAZY"
--
Les Cargill
Fred Weiss
> Burned out tree-humping gaia-fearing acid casualty hippie
> greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
> their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue to
> spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid fart
> clearing a room.
Boy, talk about inspired polemics! :-)
ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth, so the enviroHysterics are
in..denial.
Fred Weiss
Shrikeback
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:15:21 -0800 (PST), Shrikeback
>
>
>
>
>
> <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 26, 10:50=A0am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > Burned out tree-humping gaia-fearing acid casualty hippie
> >> > > > > greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
> >> > > > > their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue t=
> >o
> >> > > > > spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid far=
> >t
> >> > > > > clearing a room.
>
> >> > > You think that'll be a box office hit?
>
> >> > Why not? =A0
>
> >> It would be competing against a better fantasy:
>
> >> If hacked Emails can keep Artic ice from melting they can power all
> >> ground transportation!
>
> >There's no need to do anything to keep Arctic ice from
> >melting. NASA is predicting decades of global cooling
> >anyway.
>
> Cite?
I didn't find the original NASA article I saw a few months ago
immediately, but I did find this reference to it in the NYT:
Other researchers, including NASA scientists at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., reported
separately on April 21 that a slowly fluctuating oscillation
in Pacific Ocean temperatures had shifted into its cool phase,
a condition that is also thought to exert an overall temporary
cooling of the climate.
> > Enough to refreeze Gorezilla in the ice so he
> >won't threaten the city of Kyoto with destruction ever again.
>
> >Of course, we have to wonder whether these predictions were
> >made with the same sort of crappy Fortran that all the hysterical
> >predictions of greenshirts are based on.
>
> cite? I happen to know some of the people that wrote the climate
> models and they are at least 10 times smarter than you.
Of course you do. You also supped with Napolean and
exchanged bong hits with Che Guevara in the steamy
jungles of Bolivia. In any case, all these guys who are
10 times as good at writing bugless code as me have
to do is publish their source code for all the best hackers
in the world to critique, wouldn't you say?
> >Oh well, it could be that NASA is right, and we're at a tipping
> >point when it comes to global warming hysteria. Cash in now,
> >because if NASA _is_ right, and things cool off enough over
> >the next two decades,
>
> cite? Just how can you claim NASA is right, when you don't even have
> the data?
I didn't claim NASA was right. It is customary to use the word,
"if," prior to making a hypothetical. That's just basic English.
Perhaps you've seen it in print.
> > AGW is going to rouse nothing but
> >yawns from John Q Bonghit.
>
> You're dumber than a post.
Uh huh. It is customary for me to be insulting in a way
that is more clever than the troll interlocutor, but I am
trying to be a good netizen these days, and less like you
guys. Besides, as they say, if you argue with an idiot,
it brings into question whether the guy you are arguing
with is also arguing with an idiot.
Bret Cahill
warming was a scam and that there was no sense in fighting the
See the full article at:
www.desperaterightardswillbelieveanything.com
Bret Cahill
Last Post
> The interior minister of Denmark said that the Emails hacked from the
> warming was a scam and that there was no sense in fighting the
•• Bret Cahill — Just another fascist fool. <G>
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Last Post
> The interior minister of Denmark said that the Emails hacked from the
> climate research unit at East Anglia were proof enough that global
> warming was a scam and that there was no sense in fighting the
> Canadians for oil blocked by artic ice.
•• Hey Cahill— You've pasted that bit of stupidity at
least twice in this thread, and you still haven't
learned to spell Arctic correctly. <G>
Bret Cahill
> > climate research unit at East Anglia were proof enough that global
> > warming was a scam and that there was no sense in fighting the
> > Canadians for oil blocked by artic ice.
>
> •• Hey Cahill— You've pasted that bit of stupidity at
> least twice in this thread, and you still haven't
> learned to spell Arctic correctly. <G>
Let me give the ol' spell checker a try.
(busy looking at highlighted words)
Ok, I'm back. Yea, you're right. Probably not a typo either.
I'll correct the header as well.
The interior minister of Denmark said that the Emails hacked from the
climate research unit at East Anglia were proof enough that global
warming was a scam and that there was no sense in fighting the
Canadians for oil blocked by Arctic ice.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> John Stafford wrote
> > Could it be that they do not want to risk highly qualified peer reviews?
>
> Mindless conspiracy theory.
True, they don't mind peer review...so long as it agrees with them.
Maintaining the carefully constructed fraud of "consensus" was the
Prime Directive. It ensured the steady flow of large sums of gov't
grant money to continually feed the flames of envirohysteria. Thus an
endless feedback loop was created of funding feeding hysteria and
hysteria generating more funding.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
>
> > Mindless conspiracy theory.
>
> True, they don't mind peer review...so long as it agrees with them.
Fred, why don't you peer review this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
We'll be settin' on the edges of our chairs holding our breath waiting
for some commentary.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > climate research unit at East Anglia was proof enough that global
> > warming was a scam and that there was no sense in fighting the
> > Canadians for oil that neither could drill.
>
> > See the full article at:
>
> >www.desperaterightardswillbelieveanything.com
>
> •• Bret Cahill — Just another fascist fool.
So how's your "CO2 Is Good for You Video" coming along?
Remember not to be stingy with the duct tape.
Bret Cahill
Last Post
•• Only the ignorant and the stupidos
would have any concern with IPCC ar4
Last Post
[nothing worth noting]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis a process that converts carbon
dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars,
using the energy from sunlight.[1]
Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many
species of Bacteria. Photosynthetic organisms are
called photoautotrophs, since it allows them to
create their own food.
In plants, algae and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis
uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as
a waste product.
Photosynthesis (CO2) is vital for life on Earth.
As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in
the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it
directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the
ultimate source of the energy in their food.[β][2]
The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is
immense, approximately 100 terawatts:[3] which is
about six times larger than the power consumption
of human civilization.[4]
As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source
of the carbon in all the organic compounds within
organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic organisms
convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon
into biomass per year.[5]
Photosynthesis evolved early in the evolutionary
history of life, when all forms of life on Earth were
microorganisms and the atmosphere had much more
carbon dioxide. The first photosynthetic organisms
probably evolved about 3,500 million years ago, and
used hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide as sources of
electrons, rather than water.[6]
Cyanobacteria appeared later, around 3,000 million
years ago, and changed the Earth forever when they
began to oxygenate the atmosphere, beginning
about 2,400 million years ago.[7]
This new atmosphere allowed the evolution of
complex life such as protists. Eventually, about 550
million years ago, one of these protists formed a
symbiotic relationship with a cyanobacterium,
producing the ancestor of the plants and algae.[8]
The chloroplasts in modern plants are the
descendants of these ancient symbiotic cyanobacteria.
2n CO2 + 2n H2O + photons → 2(CH2O)n + 2n O2
carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Bret Cahill
> > >won't threaten the city of Kyoto with destruction ever again.
Another excitin' Hollywood blockbuster!
Yeehaaa!
> > >Of course, we have to wonder whether these predictions were
> > >made with the same sort of crappy Fortran that all the hysterical
> > >predictions of greenshirts are based on.
You really think higher level languages are better?
For the excitin' Hollywood movie that is.
We already know they just waste computer power when it comes to basic
number crunching.
> > cite? I happen to know some of the people that wrote the climate
> > models and they are at least 10 times smarter than you.
> Of course you do. You also supped with Napolean and
> exchanged bong hits with Che Guevara in the steamy
> jungles of Bolivia. In any case, all these guys who are
> 10 times as good at writing bugless code as me have
> to do is publish their source code for all the best hackers
> in the world to critique, wouldn't you say?
Will the main character get pushed too far?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> > Mindless conspiracy theory.
>
> True, they don't mind peer review...so long as it agrees with them.
Hey, Fred, peer review this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
We'll be settin' on the edges of our chairs holding our breath!
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> > Mindless conspiracy theory.
>
> True, they don't mind peer review...so long as it agrees with them.
Peer review this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Bret Cahill
hal
<shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I didn't find the original NASA article I saw a few months ago
>immediately, but I did find this reference to it in the NYT:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ykygt7u
>
>Other researchers, including NASA scientists at the Jet
>Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., reported
>separately on April 21 that a slowly fluctuating oscillation
>in Pacific Ocean temperatures had shifted into its cool phase,
>a condition that is also thought to exert an overall temporary
>cooling of the climate.
"thought to" 'nuff said.
>
>> > Enough to refreeze Gorezilla in the ice so he
>> >won't threaten the city of Kyoto with destruction ever again.
>>
>> >Of course, we have to wonder whether these predictions were
>> >made with the same sort of crappy Fortran that all the hysterical
>> >predictions of greenshirts are based on.
>>
>> cite? =A0I happen to know some of the people that wrote the climate
>> models and they are at least 10 times smarter than you.
>
>Of course you do. You also supped with Napolean and
>exchanged bong hits with Che Guevara in the steamy
>jungles of Bolivia.
http://www.matr.net/article-26578.html
> In any case, all these guys who are
>10 times as good at writing bugless code as me have
>to do is publish their source code for all the best hackers
>in the world to critique, wouldn't you say?
The source code is published, moron. It's public domain because it
was developed at land grant colleges. Look it up.
Bret Cahill
Why would a blowhard nutter who fantasizes out loud be interested in
AGW modeling software?
A nutter downloading AGW models would be like giving a violin to a
monkey.
Bret Cahill
Demon Buddha
> John Stafford wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 12:57 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> John Stafford wrote
>>
>>> Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or SPSS procedures?
>>>> Because you cant do climate modelling that way.
>>
>> You can't model with junk data. Begin with proofing the data, then
>> 'model'. They never got to the very first step of research.
>> Regardless, one can model a great deal using SAS, or SPSS
>
> You can indeed, but this is a very complex system.
Model global weather systems with SPSS? I don't think so. My friend,
we will call him Steve, used to work at UCAR. They use CRAYs to do this
using home built systems and still have fits with the enormity of the
task. I've used SPSS a bit and don't see it as being at all suited to
such a task.
>
> I used to be involved in the supercomputing business. There are
> typically more supercomputing cycles installed for
> meteorlogic/climatologic applications than any other, with the possible
> exception of geophysics.
You may have overlooked NSA. They have 11 *acres* of T90s and the sort.
>
> The researchers we used to work with back in the 80's would tell you
> without hesitation that climate and weather were simply too complicated
> to model with any hope of precision, and that they were also quite far
> from understanding the interaction of the variables well enough to
> create such a model.
>
> Then, suddenly, just a few years later, the same guys were in the news
> telling the world that their models were so accurate and so precise that
> we (collectively) needed to turn the world's econmomy upside down to
> avert disaster.
>
> I smelled a rat than, and I still do now. Doesn't mean that human
> activity ISN'T causing climate change, but it DOES mean that these guys
> simply do not know enough to predict it or model it with any accuracy.
And that is the crux of the problem. "They" are demanding we turn our
lives upside down based on notions that are far from proven. Screw that.
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>> John Stafford wrote:
>>> On Nov 26, 12:57 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> John Stafford wrote
>>>
>>>> Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or SPSS procedures?
>>>>> Because you cant do climate modelling that way.
>>>
>>> You can't model with junk data. Begin with proofing the data, then
>>> 'model'. They never got to the very first step of research.
>>> Regardless, one can model a great deal using SAS, or SPSS
>>
>> You can indeed, but this is a very complex system.
>
> Model global weather systems with SPSS? I don't think so. My
> friend, we will call him Steve, used to work at UCAR. They use CRAYs to
> do this using home built systems and still have fits with the enormity
> of the task. I've used SPSS a bit and don't see it as being at all
> suited to such a task.
>>
>> I used to be involved in the supercomputing business. There are
>> typically more supercomputing cycles installed for
>> meteorlogic/climatologic applications than any other, with the
>> possible exception of geophysics.
>
> You may have overlooked NSA. They have 11 *acres* of T90s and the
> sort.
Yes, well.....*ahem*....I suppose that's very important. :-(
>>
>> The researchers we used to work with back in the 80's would tell you
>> without hesitation that climate and weather were simply too
>> complicated to model with any hope of precision, and that they were
>> also quite far from understanding the interaction of the variables
>> well enough to create such a model.
>>
>> Then, suddenly, just a few years later, the same guys were in the news
>> telling the world that their models were so accurate and so precise
>> that we (collectively) needed to turn the world's econmomy upside down
>> to avert disaster.
>>
>> I smelled a rat than, and I still do now. Doesn't mean that human
>> activity ISN'T causing climate change, but it DOES mean that these
>> guys simply do not know enough to predict it or model it with any
>> accuracy.
>
> And that is the crux of the problem. "They" are demanding we turn
> our lives upside down based on notions that are far from proven. Screw
> that.
Precisely.
JG
tooly
> The interior minister of Denmark said that the Emails hacked from the
> climate research unit at East Anglia was proof enough that global
> warming was a scam and that there was no sense in fighting the
> Canadians for oil that neither could drill.
>
> See the full article at:
>
> www.desperaterightardswillbelieveanything.com
>
> > > greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
> > > spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid fart
> > > clearing a room.
>
> You think that'll be a box office hit?
>
>
> > Among the information that was leaked is something
> > that indicates a _real_ problem with the software that
> > was written at the CRU to make predictions regarding
> > AGW:
>
> Does this mean they have to stop growing crops in Greenland?
>
> . . .
>
> > So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
> > gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
> > show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
> > prediction he is referencing.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
Here's the brass tax [or is that tacks?]....
the whole affair has now been politicized to the point where even if
valid, there's no way greenies will ever convince the public to commit
economic suicide; not now. But even if valid, if we cut out ALL CO2
production today, we'd only impact the temperature change by end of
century by 1 degree farenheit. Total human production of CO2 has been
estimated to be a whopping 1/10,000th of the natural total CO2
production since industrialization. Good try socialists of the world,
but no cigar; your plot was pretty pisspoor anyway. You almost had us
by the balls though, ha. Perhaps the world will let the natural
reactionary fascism take place [to your activism as of late] and have
your own gonads hanging on a tree pretty soon, hehe [after we shoot up
the trailer park of course]...
Last Post
Fred Weiss
> ... But even if valid, if we cut out ALL CO2
> production today, we'd only impact the temperature change by end of
> century by 1 degree farenheit. Total human production of CO2 has been
> estimated to be a whopping 1/10,000th of the natural total CO2
> production since industrialization.
Well, but you see that suggests that their primary assumption is not
valid.
If there is very little we could do anyway to reverse the process, it
is precisely because there is very little we are doing to cause it in
the first place.
The assumptions are flawed at their root. This was of course known by
sensible people well before the recent ClimateGate revelations. But
the revelations confirm that even the enviroHysterics know it
themselves.
ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth. Unmasking a fraud generally is.
That it was done in the name of science simply makes it especially
outrageous.
Fred Weiss
Rod Speed
> tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> But even if valid, if we cut out ALL CO2> production today, we'd only
>> impact the temperature change by end of> century by 1 degree farenheit.
That number is straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
>> Total human production of CO2 has been estimated to be a whopping
>> 1/10,000th of the natural total CO2 production since industrialization.
That number is straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
> Well, but you see that suggests that their primary assumption is not valid.
Only if those numbers are valid.
> If there is very little we could do anyway to reverse the process, it is precisely
> because there is very little we are doing to cause it in the first place.
That hasnt been established. What has been established is that we have
seen a dramatic increase in CO2 levels since say the industrial revolution.
Whether that is producing any significant temperature effect is another matter entirely.
> The assumptions are flawed at their root. This was of course known
> by sensible people well before the recent ClimateGate revelations. But
> the revelations confirm that even the enviroHysterics know it themselves.
No it doesnt. ALL it does is show that the basics still arent well understood.
> ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth. Unmasking a fraud generally is.
It isnt fraud, any more than the fools that cant buy Darwinism are frauds.
> That it was done in the name of science simply makes it especially outrageous.
Only for fools that dont understand how real science works.
Shrikeback
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:49:18 -0800 (PST), Shrikeback
>
> >I didn't find the original NASA article I saw a few months ago
> >immediately, but I did find this reference to it in the NYT:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ykygt7u
>
> >Other researchers, including NASA scientists at the Jet
> >Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., reported
> >separately on April 21 that a slowly fluctuating oscillation
> >in Pacific Ocean temperatures had shifted into its cool phase,
> >a condition that is also thought to exert an overall temporary
> >cooling of the climate.
>
> "thought to" 'nuff said.
Sure. It's all, "thought to," when you get down to it.
So what's your point?
> >> > Enough to refreeze Gorezilla in the ice so he
> >> >won't threaten the city of Kyoto with destruction ever again.
>
> >> >Of course, we have to wonder whether these predictions were
> >> >made with the same sort of crappy Fortran that all the hysterical
> >> >predictions of greenshirts are based on.
>
> >> cite? =A0I happen to know some of the people that wrote the climate
> >> models and they are at least 10 times smarter than you.
>
> >Of course you do. You also supped with Napolean and
> >exchanged bong hits with Che Guevara in the steamy
> >jungles of Bolivia.
>
> http://www.matr.net/article-26578.html
Okay. So you have an interest in all this then?
> > In any case, all these guys who are
> >10 times as good at writing bugless code as me have
> >to do is publish their source code for all the best hackers
> >in the world to critique, wouldn't you say?
>
> The source code is published, moron.
Really. I mean aside from the spaghetti code that is
included in the hacked documents.
If it's published online, where is it? The final code
could then be compared to the allegedly crappy
code that has been leaked, with its fudging and so
on..
This space provided for the link:
Or do we need to file a FOIA request?
Anyway, this thread has sparked an interest in
looking at these Fortran files first hand. Let's
all download the hacked code, shall we? Then
we'll conduct a code review.
> It's public domain because it
> was developed at land grant colleges. Look it up.
Public domain, and publicly accessible are two different
things. So where can we downoad the source again. aside
from hackerville?
Shrikeback
> > > > Enough to refreeze Gorezilla in the ice so he
> > > >won't threaten the city of Kyoto with destruction ever again.
>
> Another excitin' Hollywood blockbuster!
>
> Yeehaaa!
Gorezilla is a Japanese movie.
> > > >Of course, we have to wonder whether these predictions were
> > > >made with the same sort of crappy Fortran that all the hysterical
> > > >predictions of greenshirts are based on.
>
> You really think higher level languages are better?
Um. Where do you see that, Mr. AOL. I do think
English is a good language, and perhaps you should
learn it. I didn't slander Fortran itself, Gomer. I slandered
the code in question. There's a difference. And, hell,
folks can write spaghetti even in Java. C is no more
high-level than Fortran, and C++ isn't really higher level
than C. Hell, Java bytecode can run natively (I am told)
on new ARM CPUs and on Blu-Ray devices.
> For the excitin' Hollywood movie that is.
>
> We already know they just waste computer power when it comes to basic
> number crunching.
C could be just as efficient as Fortran. It's a matter
of how well the compiler is written really. In truth,
we could all write in assembly language, but compilers
these days will probably make the resulting native code
more efficient than a human-written assembly equivalent,
particularly if the assemply winds up being a bunch of
spaghetti, like your mind.
> > > cite? I happen to know some of the people that wrote the climate
> > > models and they are at least 10 times smarter than you.
> > Of course you do. You also supped with Napolean and
> > exchanged bong hits with Che Guevara in the steamy
> > jungles of Bolivia. In any case, all these guys who are
> > 10 times as good at writing bugless code as me have
> > to do is publish their source code for all the best hackers
> > in the world to critique, wouldn't you say?
>
> Will the main character get pushed too far?
Yeah, he'll be forced by environmental whackos to live
in the Unabomber's shack, and to be a prostitute
servicing the perverted needs of old growth fir trees.
Tree humpers unite!
Shrikeback
Yes, we must. I fail to see why he even pretends to
know anything at all, him being an AOL alumni and all.
Shrikeback
> John Stafford wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 12:57 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> John Stafford wrote
>
> >> Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or SPSS procedures?
> >>> Because you cant do climate modelling that way.
>
> > You can't model with junk data. Begin with proofing the data, then
> > 'model'. They never got to the very first step of research. Regardless,
> > one can model a great deal using SAS, or SPSS
>
> You can indeed, but this is a very complex system.
>
> typically more supercomputing cycles installed for
> meteorlogic/climatologic applications than any other, with the possible
> exception of geophysics.
>
> without hesitation that climate and weather were simply too complicated
> to model with any hope of precision, and that they were also quite far
> from understanding the interaction of the variables well enough to
> create such a model.
>
> Then, suddenly, just a few years later, the same guys were in the news
> telling the world that their models were so accurate and so precise that
> we (collectively) needed to turn the world's econmomy upside down to
> avert disaster.
>
> I smelled a rat than, and I still do now. Doesn't mean that human
> activity ISN'T causing climate change, but it DOES mean that these guys
> simply do not know enough to predict it or model it with any accuracy.
>
Yeah, it seems to me that putting to much faith
in even the most conscientiously constructed models
flies in the face of mathematical chaos.
Bret Cahill
> > activity ISN'T causing climate change, but it DOES mean that these guys
> > simply do not know enough to predict it or model it with any accuracy.
>
> > JG
>
> Yeah, it seems to me that putting to much faith
> in even the most conscientiously constructed models
> flies in the face of mathematical chaos.
Kinda like high skool drop out rightards putting too much faith in
hacked Emails they are too stoopid to really unnerstand?
You guys were doing better with candid camera entrapment videos of
ACORN.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
> > > > So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
> > > > gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
> > > > show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
> > > > prediction he is referencing.
>
> > > SPSS procedures? Could it be that they do not want to risk highly
> > > qualified peer reviews?
>
> > It could be. Personally, I don't see any reason not to
> > publish the source code for climate models online.
>
> If climate researchers want to influence public policy then they
> better make the basis of all their arguments public.
There's a central issue there. Why should researchers
want to influence public policy, aside from the natural
self-interest influence of marketing more spending on
research? They are researchers, after all, not advocates.
> Same with the bankers. If they want loans from the Federal Reserve
> then they need to make all their accounts public, i.e., names,
> transfers amounts, dates, etc.
>
> Same with employers. If they want to do business with the public then
> they need to make everything public, i. e., sales, marketing
> strategies, former employees . . .
What about the right to privacy of those former employees,
not to mention the IP involved in that sales and marketing
strategies? Please, there are limits to that which is public.
And everyone does business with the public. What next,
Usenet posters have to post their addresses?
Bret Cahill
Spin won't work here. Ain't no janitor can clean up your mess.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > > > > gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
> > > > > show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
> > > > > prediction he is referencing.
>
> > > > Excellent points. Thank you. Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or
> > > > SPSS procedures? Could it be that they do not want to risk highly
> > > > qualified peer reviews?
>
> > > It could be. Personally, I don't see any reason not to
> > > publish the source code for climate models online.
>
> > If climate researchers want to influence public policy then they
> > better make the basis of all their arguments public.
>
> There's a central issue there. Why should researchers
> want to influence public policy, aside from the natural
> self-interest influence of marketing more spending on
> research? They are researchers, after all, not advocates.
>
> > Same with the bankers. If they want loans from the Federal Reserve
> > then they need to make all their accounts public, i.e., names,
> > transfers amounts, dates, etc.
>
> > Same with employers. If they want to do business with the public then
> > they need to make everything public, i. e., sales, marketing
> > strategies, former employees . . .
>
> What about the right to privacy of those former employees,
Ask them E. Anglia climate researchers about that.
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
> Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote
>>>>> So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical
>>>>> greenshirt gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just
>>>>> tell him he needs to show you the Fortran code that was
>>>>> used to make whatever idiotic prediction he is referencing.
>>>> Excellent points. Thank you. Why the hell don't they use standard
>>>> SAS or SPSS procedures? Could it be that they do not want to risk
>>>> highly qualified peer reviews?
>>> It could be. Personally, I don't see any reason not to
>>> publish the source code for climate models online.
>> If climate researchers want to influence public policy then
>> they better make the basis of all their arguments public.
> There's a central issue there. Why should researchers
> want to influence public policy, aside from the natural
> self-interest influence of marketing more spending on
> research? They are researchers, after all, not advocates.
Hordes of them have become advocates, essentially because they
really do believe that something has to be done about global warming.
It remains to be seen if they will end up face down in the mud or not.
>> Same with the bankers. If they want loans from the Federal Reserve
>> then they need to make all their accounts public, i.e., names,
>> transfers amounts, dates, etc.
>> Same with employers. If they want to do business with the
>> public then they need to make everything public, i. e., sales,
>> marketing strategies, former employees . . .
> What about the right to privacy of those former employees,
Its irrelevant.
> not to mention the IP involved in that sales and marketing strategies?
Its irrelevant too. This issue is too important for that to matter.
> Please, there are limits to that which is public.
Not when its govt funded there arent.
John Galt
Sure does, especially with any model that involves effects compounded
over even as few as 20-30 periods. The ultimate conclusions skew widely
even with small changes in the original assumptions.
I mean, what good's a model that tells you that Bermuda will have
someplace between (1) an inch lower coastline and (2) be 50 feet underwater?
JG
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Nov 27, 5:31 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>>> So, the next time some computer-illiterate non-technical greenshirt
>>>>> gives you crap about being a, "denialist," just tell him he needs to
>>>>> show you the Fortran code that was used to make whatever idiotic
>>>>> prediction he is referencing.
>>>> Excellent points. Thank you. Why the hell don't they use standard SAS or
>>>> SPSS procedures? Could it be that they do not want to risk highly
>>>> qualified peer reviews?
>>> It could be. Personally, I don't see any reason not to
>>> publish the source code for climate models online.
>> If climate researchers want to influence public policy then they
>> better make the basis of all their arguments public.
>
> There's a central issue there. Why should researchers
> want to influence public policy, aside from the natural
> self-interest influence of marketing more spending on
> research? They are researchers, after all, not advocates.
>
Bret Cahill
What good's a market econoist who dodges The Question:
> that tells you that Bermuda will have
> someplace between (1) an inch lower coastline and (2) be 50 feet underwater?
We still get to use the NW Passage don't we?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars,
> using the energy from sunlight.[1]
Your "CO2 Is Good for You Video" will convince the public.
Just make sure you use plenty of duct tape.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
I think you have it exactly backwards. This is
why the in-the-tank legacy media can't even report on
Climategate.
Shrikeback
> > > I smelled a rat than, and I still do now. Doesn't mean that human
> > > activity ISN'T causing climate change, but it DOES mean that these guys
> > > simply do not know enough to predict it or model it with any accuracy.
>
> > > JG
>
> > Yeah, it seems to me that putting to much faith
> > in even the most conscientiously constructed models
> > flies in the face of mathematical chaos.
>
> Kinda like high skool drop out rightards putting too much faith in
> hacked Emails they are too stoopid to really unnerstand?
Can we please bring the subject away from your own
personal feelings of inadequecy for once?
> You guys were doing better with candid camera entrapment videos of
> ACORN.
Since when is journalism considerd entrapment? 60 Minutes
used to do that sort of thing all the time, back before the legacy
media went AWOL.
Bret Cahill
> > > > >10 times as good at writing bugless code as me have
> > > > >to do is publish their source code for all the best hackers
> > > > >in the world to critique, wouldn't you say?
>
> > > > The source code is published, moron.
. . .
> > > > It's public domain because it
> > > > was developed at land grant colleges. Look it up.
>
> > > Public domain, and publicly accessible are two different
> > > things. So where can we downoad the source again. aside
> > > from hackerville?
>
> > Spin won't work here. Ain't no janitor can clean up your mess.
>
> > Bret Cahill-
>
> I think
You think we still get to drill for Arctic oil?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> age.
> its comming real real quick too.
Kook koo kook koo
Bret Cahill
zzbunker
> On Nov 26, 10:50 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Burned out tree-humping gaia-fearing acid casualty hippie
> > > > > > greenshirts may scramble like ants after a lumberjack stomps
> > > > > > their hysteria anthill, but the vile gas of doubt will continue to
> > > > > > spread and apostosize the faithfully hysterical like a rancid fart
> > > > > > clearing a room.
>
> > > > You think that'll be a box office hit?
>
>
> > It would be competing against a better fantasy:
>
> > If hacked Emails can keep Artic ice from melting they can power all
> > ground transportation!
>
> There's no need to do anything to keep Arctic ice from
> melting. NASA is predicting decades of global cooling
> anyway. Enough to refreeze Gorezilla in the ice so he
> won't threaten the city of Kyoto with destruction ever again.
>
> Of course, we have to wonder whether these predictions were
> made with the same sort of crappy Fortran that all the hysterical
> predictions of greenshirts are based on.
Well, of course, with these people, Chaos Theory is not a Theory,
it's a Bible.
Which is why people who understand post virtual photon engineering
even
work on things like Cyber Batteries, Blue Ray, Holographics, digital
books, usb,
distributed processing software mp3. mpeg, atomic clock
wristwatches, light sticks,
fibe optics, self-replicating machines, self-assembling robots,
HDTV, Home Broadband,
desktop publishing, on-line publishing, UAVs, Drones, biodiesel, pv
cells, hybrid-electric energy,
gps, digital terrain mapping, and post gm-nomics.
>
> Oh well, it could be that NASA is right, and we're at a tipping
> point when it comes to global warming hysteria. Cash in now,
> because if NASA _is_ right, and things cool off enough over
> the next two decades, AGW is going to rouse nothing but
> yawns from John Q Bonghit.