Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[OT] 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Crabbit Bampot
May 17, 2013, 1:36:20 PM5/17/13
to
<http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/17/133201/97-of-climate-science-papers-agree-global-warming-is-man-made>
<quote>
A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and
2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global
warming.
The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that
took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the
1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate
their own studies, with nearly identical results.
In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
that anybody can check their results.
</quote>
--
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to
ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through
all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these
ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most
unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders
of us all... I personally resent it bitterly.
-Isaac Asimov
<quote>
A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and
2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global
warming.
The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that
took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the
1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate
their own studies, with nearly identical results.
In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
that anybody can check their results.
</quote>
--
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to
ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through
all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these
ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most
unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders
of us all... I personally resent it bitterly.
-Isaac Asimov
7
May 17, 2013, 1:56:12 PM5/17/13
to
Crabbit Bampot wrote:
> <http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/17/133201/97-of-climate-science-
One or two turns produces about $1 which get squandered on
glow ball warmies who then say glow ball warmiesm is caused by man,
therefore lets waste more money on wind farms etc.
The all know the glow ball warmie signal doesn't exist,
so now its called climate change.
There is no climate change signal either.
Oh dear.
So they are gonna have to call it "glacial melting wake up call"
or something like that soon to get some credibility back.
> <http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/17/133201/97-of-climate-science-
papers-agree-global-warming-is-man-made>
>
> <quote>
> A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
> papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and
> 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
> or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global
> warming.
>
> The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that
> took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the
> 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate
> their own studies, with nearly identical results.
>
> In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
> in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
> that anybody can check their results.
> </quote>
The only trouble is all the funding they get is from wind farms.
>
> <quote>
> A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
> papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and
> 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
> or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global
> warming.
>
> The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that
> took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the
> 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate
> their own studies, with nearly identical results.
>
> In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
> in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
> that anybody can check their results.
> </quote>
One or two turns produces about $1 which get squandered on
glow ball warmies who then say glow ball warmiesm is caused by man,
therefore lets waste more money on wind farms etc.
The all know the glow ball warmie signal doesn't exist,
so now its called climate change.
There is no climate change signal either.
Oh dear.
So they are gonna have to call it "glacial melting wake up call"
or something like that soon to get some credibility back.
Snit
May 17, 2013, 2:05:13 PM5/17/13
to
On 5/17/13 10:56 AM, in article 2bult.16477$EN2....@newsfe15.iad, "7"
"The UI is developed by experts, except it is shitty, but improvements are
bringing in more and more users, except that Linux is at 1% as usual."
- Brad cc Wiggins
<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
>> in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
>> that anybody can check their results.
>> </quote>
>
>
> The only trouble is all the funding they get is from wind farms.
> One or two turns produces about $1 which get squandered on
> glow ball warmies who then say glow ball warmiesm is caused by man,
> therefore lets waste more money on wind farms etc.
>
> The all know the glow ball warmie signal doesn't exist,
> so now its called climate change.
>
> There is no climate change signal either.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> So they are gonna have to call it "glacial melting wake up call"
> or something like that soon to get some credibility back.
--
>> In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
>> in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
>> that anybody can check their results.
>> </quote>
>
>
> The only trouble is all the funding they get is from wind farms.
> One or two turns produces about $1 which get squandered on
> glow ball warmies who then say glow ball warmiesm is caused by man,
> therefore lets waste more money on wind farms etc.
>
> The all know the glow ball warmie signal doesn't exist,
> so now its called climate change.
>
> There is no climate change signal either.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> So they are gonna have to call it "glacial melting wake up call"
> or something like that soon to get some credibility back.
"The UI is developed by experts, except it is shitty, but improvements are
bringing in more and more users, except that Linux is at 1% as usual."
- Brad cc Wiggins
flatfish+++
May 17, 2013, 2:10:48 PM5/17/13
to
since the beginning of time and this is nothing new.
Look at the "little ice age" that occurred during the 16th - 19th
century.
I do believe that man made technology might however be aggravating
things though. But directly responsible? I'm not convinced.
--
flatfish+++
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
7
May 17, 2013, 3:16:42 PM5/17/13
to
All the glow ball warmie trolls are marched out
whenever there is something going like a heat wave
or a glowbal warmie convention reliant on some
money being doled out at the end of it dependent
on people calling up their politician.
And as soon as it is over, they all melt away.
A bit like you and microsaft/appil PR management trolls
use you to post your trolls.
flatfish+++
May 17, 2013, 3:22:16 PM5/17/13
to
money off of FOSS and the work of the programmers.
Substitute any "freedom fighting cause" for FOSS.
7
May 17, 2013, 3:58:38 PM5/17/13
to
trolls like you make the money from FOSS
constantly bleating anti-linux and anti-open source
trolls.
It seems you are just a low pay internet troll
with a long internet history of trolling in comp.os.linux.advocay
as was always the case.
chrisv
May 17, 2013, 4:16:12 PM5/17/13
to
President 7 wrote:
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> As I have told you before, somewhere, somehow, someone is making
>> money off of FOSS and the work of the programmers.
>
>A one hand clap goes out to you for discovering
>trolls like you make the money from FOSS
>constantly bleating anti-linux and anti-open source
>trolls.
That stupid, lying, mentally-ill troll must imagine that anyone here
is so naive that they think that the FOSS market is absolutely 100%
"fair" for everyone involved, that no one is overcompensated or
undercompensated.
As in any free and healthy market, market forces work to prevent
grossly unfair behavior. This doesn't mean that it perfectly
compensates everyone for their efforts.
Of course, "compensation" includes "getting the tool that you need",
as well as what you are "paid". Dumbshit haters like "Flatfish" and
"DFS" can't seem to understand this.
Check out the Dumfsck *lie* in my sig. Someone should explain to the
dumbshit that products that are not economically viable die-off. The
fact that projects have not died and are continuously developed, is
proof-positive that they are economically viable, i.e. "profitable".
It's just not easily accountable on a balance sheet.
--
"Along with most open source products, it's a HUGE financial failure.
Every single Linux/OSS development hour ever spent has an opportunity
cost associated with it - and that cost is overwhelmingly never
recouped." - ignorant liar DumFSck
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> As I have told you before, somewhere, somehow, someone is making
>> money off of FOSS and the work of the programmers.
>
>A one hand clap goes out to you for discovering
>trolls like you make the money from FOSS
>constantly bleating anti-linux and anti-open source
>trolls.
is so naive that they think that the FOSS market is absolutely 100%
"fair" for everyone involved, that no one is overcompensated or
undercompensated.
As in any free and healthy market, market forces work to prevent
grossly unfair behavior. This doesn't mean that it perfectly
compensates everyone for their efforts.
Of course, "compensation" includes "getting the tool that you need",
as well as what you are "paid". Dumbshit haters like "Flatfish" and
"DFS" can't seem to understand this.
Check out the Dumfsck *lie* in my sig. Someone should explain to the
dumbshit that products that are not economically viable die-off. The
fact that projects have not died and are continuously developed, is
proof-positive that they are economically viable, i.e. "profitable".
It's just not easily accountable on a balance sheet.
--
"Along with most open source products, it's a HUGE financial failure.
Every single Linux/OSS development hour ever spent has an opportunity
cost associated with it - and that cost is overwhelmingly never
recouped." - ignorant liar DumFSck
Phil Da Lick!
May 20, 2013, 5:08:20 AM5/20/13
to
climate is always changing.
>
> Look at the "little ice age" that occurred during the 16th - 19th
> century.
>
> I do believe that man made technology might however be aggravating
> things though. But directly responsible? I'm not convinced.
technology is a smoke screen. I remember a lesson in middle school (30
years or so ago) about the Oxygen cycle, where the teacher explained
that animals breath in o2 and emit co2 and plants do the reverse and
everything is wonderfully in balance. Even as a 10 or 11 year old then I
had big problems with that. In the last 300 years in addition to
decimating the rainforests the human population has risen 50 fold or
more (along with our livestock population rising too). There's no way it
is "in balance". If I could work that out at 11 why couldn't anybody
else? There's no doubt that we are contributing to rising co2 but
blaming it all on technology is simplistic claptrap. Our mere population
growth is the biggest factor in rising co2.
I'm also still to be convinced that rising co2 has the effects that the
global warmists shout about. Greenhouse gas for sure, but given what I
posted above we should all be dead by now if it was as bad as they claim.
I also note the comments elsewhere that a lot of this propaganda is
being driven by special interest groups. Nothing new there, people want
to make money, that's natural. But wind farms are not the answer.
They're inefficient, ugly, way too expensive, and their operational
lifespan is not long enough. Not to mention totally useless when the
wind isn't blowing, or blowing in the wrong direction. I'd like to see
the UK invest heavily in tidal power solutions. We could be totally self
sufficient energy wise in a few decades with the natural resources
around our shorelines in this area.
And as far as co2 is concerned there's a very simple answer. Start
landfilling carbon from the atmosphere. If every local council (or
equivalent worldwide) started adding carbon to its landfill and
increased the quotas every year the rise could be slowed within a decade
or two. After all, this would imitate the effect of extra plantlife.
When plants die they - and their constituent carbon - end up under the
ground to become petrol for civilisations a few hundred million years
away. Let's cut out the middleman and get cracking. Simple problems
usually have simple solutions.
>
>
>
Jeff-Relf.Me
May 20, 2013, 7:43:12 AM5/20/13
to
Re: 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made. Raising kids should be done by a few select professionals, not by horny kids looking for some fun. Those who breed like silly rabbits, die like silly rabbits. It's NOT a good idea. 1.4 billion people have less than $1.25 a day. Men go NUTS around women. Nature made us this way. So don't blame women/government.
Phil Da Lick!
May 20, 2013, 7:48:48 AM5/20/13
to
GreyCloud
May 20, 2013, 1:28:58 PM5/20/13
to
Women are just as horny as men are.
In regards to climate change:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
Phil Da Lick!
May 21, 2013, 4:13:03 AM5/21/13
to
I've seen it on the bbc I'm finding myself questioning it lol.
GreyCloud
May 21, 2013, 7:13:07 PM5/21/13
to
away at my pocket book for this.
Jeff-Relf.Me
May 21, 2013, 9:38:04 PM5/21/13
to
Obviously, the ice caps and glaciers have been melting for the last 5 thousand years, at least. The oceans are getting warmer, it's obvious. Is that a bad thing ? I don't know. What I do know is this: 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made. Raising kids should be done by a few select professionals, not by horny kids looking for some fun. Those who breed like silly rabbits, die like silly rabbits. It's NOT a good idea. 1.4 billion people have less than $1.25 a day. Men go NUTS around women. Nature made us this way. So don't blame women nor the government.
Snit
May 21, 2013, 9:50:00 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/13 6:38 PM, in article Jeff-R...@May.21{18.38.Seattle.2013},
"Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote:
> �
> The oceans are getting warmer, it's obvious.
And well studied.
> Is that a bad thing ? I don't know.
Of course it is.
> What I do know is this:
>
> 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made.
Correct.
> Raising kids should be done by a few select professionals,
> not by horny kids looking for some fun.
This is an opinion, and hence not something you "know".
> Those who breed like silly rabbits, die like silly rabbits.
> It's NOT a good idea.
This is an opinion, and hence not something you "know".
> 1.4 billion people have less than $1.25 a day.
Correct... at least from memory.
> Men go NUTS around women. Nature made us this way.
Men can control themselves and need not go "nuts" around women. Heck, there
are even men who are asexual or homosexual who are not attracted to women.
Your claim is demonstrably false.
> So don't blame women nor the government.
For what?
--
"When making pornography involves real abuse of real children ... that does
not excuse censorship. No matter how disgusting published works might be,
censorship is more disgusting." -- Richard Stallman
"Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote:
> �
> Obviously, the ice caps and glaciers have been melting
> for the last 5 thousand years, at least.
I would love to see this documented.
> for the last 5 thousand years, at least.
> The oceans are getting warmer, it's obvious.
> Is that a bad thing ? I don't know.
> What I do know is this:
>
> 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made.
> Raising kids should be done by a few select professionals,
> not by horny kids looking for some fun.
> Those who breed like silly rabbits, die like silly rabbits.
> It's NOT a good idea.
> 1.4 billion people have less than $1.25 a day.
> Men go NUTS around women. Nature made us this way.
are even men who are asexual or homosexual who are not attracted to women.
Your claim is demonstrably false.
> So don't blame women nor the government.
--
"When making pornography involves real abuse of real children ... that does
not excuse censorship. No matter how disgusting published works might be,
censorship is more disgusting." -- Richard Stallman
Phil Da Lick!
May 22, 2013, 6:13:13 AM5/22/13
to
the overall direction of travel is life gets more expensive and a few
more freedoms are lost to us every year doesn't it? lol.
GreyCloud
May 22, 2013, 1:09:33 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/2013 7:38 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> Obviously, the ice caps and glaciers have been melting
> for the last 5 thousand years, at least.
>
> The oceans are getting warmer, it's obvious.
>
> Is that a bad thing ? I don't know.
>
> What I do know is this:
>
> 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made.
>
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html
>
> Obviously, the ice caps and glaciers have been melting
> for the last 5 thousand years, at least.
>
> The oceans are getting warmer, it's obvious.
>
> Is that a bad thing ? I don't know.
>
> What I do know is this:
>
> 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made.
>
It seems our NASA disagrees with them.
> Raising kids should be done by a few select professionals,
> not by horny kids looking for some fun.
>
looking for some fun? Without them you wouldn't be here.
> Those who breed like silly rabbits, die like silly rabbits.
> It's NOT a good idea.
>
> 1.4 billion people have less than $1.25 a day.
>
> Men go NUTS around women. Nature made us this way.
>
> So don't blame women nor the government.
>
LOL!!!
GreyCloud
May 22, 2013, 1:11:21 PM5/22/13
to
way... and somehow got out of control. (money system that is)
Now we are seeing currency wars... and when a few lose, it will just be
war. History seems to bear that out.
Ian Hilliard
May 26, 2013, 11:03:32 AM5/26/13
to
On 17/05/13 19:36, Crabbit Bampot wrote:
> <http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/17/133201/97-of-climate-science-papers-agree-global-warming-is-man-made>
>
> <quote>
> A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
> papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and
> 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
> or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global
> warming.
>
> The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that
> took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the
> 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate
> their own studies, with nearly identical results.
>
> In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
> in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
> that anybody can check their results.
> </quote>
>
Just because the majority say that it is so, doesn't mean that it is so.
> <http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/17/133201/97-of-climate-science-papers-agree-global-warming-is-man-made>
>
> <quote>
> A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
> papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and
> 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
> or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global
> warming.
>
> The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that
> took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the
> 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate
> their own studies, with nearly identical results.
>
> In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
> in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
> that anybody can check their results.
> </quote>
>
There was a time that it was heresy to say that the Earth is not the
middle of the Universe. Now it is heresy to say that the global warming
was as we headed towards the peak of the sunspot cycle. This year is
very cold in Europe. Back in the 70's we were heading for an ice age,
which also never occurred. Let's see if the global warming continues.
Even scientists can get tunnel vision, especially when there is money to
be made by going down that tunnel.
Power results from the control of scarce resources, but only as long as
people want those scarce resources. Those who control those scarce
resources will always work on ensuring that there is demand for that
which they control. Petroleum oil is no different.
In the mean time, as so much of our industry is dependent on petroleum
oil, it would be great not to waste so much of it by burning it.
Petroleum oil is a finite non-renewable resource. It would be
irresponsible not to seek alternatives, while we still have ample
supplies of oil, otherwise we will come down from our current oil high,
with a bang. We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but we
should be making the change for the right reason. The impetus for change
will wain, if the designated reasons for change are proven to be wrong.
Ian
Chris Ahlstrom
May 26, 2013, 1:49:36 PM5/26/13
to
After swilling some grog, Ian Hilliard belched this bit o' wisdom:
> On 17/05/13 19:36, Crabbit Bampot wrote:
>> <http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/17/133201/97-of-climate-science-papers-agree-global-warming-is-man-made>
>>
>> <quote>
>> A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
>> papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and
>> 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
>> or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global
>> warming.
>>
>> The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that
>> took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the
>> 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate
>> their own studies, with nearly identical results.
>>
>> In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
>> in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
>> that anybody can check their results.
>> </quote>
>
> Just because the majority say that it is so, doesn't mean that it is so.
It is far more than "Just because the majority say so".
> There was a time that it was heresy to say that the Earth is not the
> middle of the Universe. Now it is heresy to say that the global warming
> was as we headed towards the peak of the sunspot cycle. This year is
> very cold in Europe. Back in the 70's we were heading for an ice age,
> which also never occurred. Let's see if the global warming continues.
> Even scientists can get tunnel vision, especially when there is money to
> be made by going down that tunnel.
>
> Power results from the control of scarce resources, but only as long as
> people want those scarce resources. Those who control those scarce
> resources will always work on ensuring that there is demand for that
> which they control. Petroleum oil is no different.
>
> In the mean time, as so much of our industry is dependent on petroleum
> oil, it would be great not to waste so much of it by burning it.
> Petroleum oil is a finite non-renewable resource. It would be
> irresponsible not to seek alternatives, while we still have ample
> supplies of oil, otherwise we will come down from our current oil high,
> with a bang. We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but we
> should be making the change for the right reason. The impetus for change
> will wain, if the designated reasons for change are proven to be wrong.
There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
can start medieval times all over again.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
--
For the fashion of Minas Tirith was such that it was built on seven levels,
each delved into a hill, and about each was set a wall, and in each wall
was a gate.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Return of the King"
[Quoted in "VMS Internals and Data Structures", V4.4, when
referring to system overview.]
> On 17/05/13 19:36, Crabbit Bampot wrote:
>> <http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/17/133201/97-of-climate-science-papers-agree-global-warming-is-man-made>
>>
>> <quote>
>> A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
>> papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and
>> 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
>> or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global
>> warming.
>>
>> The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that
>> took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the
>> 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate
>> their own studies, with nearly identical results.
>>
>> In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
>> in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
>> that anybody can check their results.
>> </quote>
>
> Just because the majority say that it is so, doesn't mean that it is so.
> There was a time that it was heresy to say that the Earth is not the
> middle of the Universe. Now it is heresy to say that the global warming
> was as we headed towards the peak of the sunspot cycle. This year is
> very cold in Europe. Back in the 70's we were heading for an ice age,
> which also never occurred. Let's see if the global warming continues.
> Even scientists can get tunnel vision, especially when there is money to
> be made by going down that tunnel.
>
> Power results from the control of scarce resources, but only as long as
> people want those scarce resources. Those who control those scarce
> resources will always work on ensuring that there is demand for that
> which they control. Petroleum oil is no different.
>
> In the mean time, as so much of our industry is dependent on petroleum
> oil, it would be great not to waste so much of it by burning it.
> Petroleum oil is a finite non-renewable resource. It would be
> irresponsible not to seek alternatives, while we still have ample
> supplies of oil, otherwise we will come down from our current oil high,
> with a bang. We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but we
> should be making the change for the right reason. The impetus for change
> will wain, if the designated reasons for change are proven to be wrong.
I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
can start medieval times all over again.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
--
For the fashion of Minas Tirith was such that it was built on seven levels,
each delved into a hill, and about each was set a wall, and in each wall
was a gate.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Return of the King"
[Quoted in "VMS Internals and Data Structures", V4.4, when
referring to system overview.]
Snit
May 26, 2013, 2:01:03 PM5/26/13
to
On 5/26/13 10:49 AM, in article knthnh$vlq$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
tied to measurable changes in the Earth in terms of pollution and ecosystems
paints a very clear picture. The details are, of course, not fully
understood and the exact predictions are not all the same. This is how
science works... how it *should* work.
But it has nothing to do with being based just on the majority saying
something - it has to do with the *evidence*.
>> There was a time that it was heresy to say that the Earth is not the
>> middle of the Universe.
So? As *evidence* showed otherwise, views changed. In your comment you show
an example where *evidence* "won the day"... but with global climate change
you are arguing *against* evidence.
Which do you think we should go with: evidence, as you do with the idea that
Earth is not in the middle of the Universe, or go *against* the evidence as
you wish to do with the idea of global climate change?
>> Now it is heresy to say that the global warming was as we headed towards the
>> peak of the sunspot cycle.
This is incorrect. I do not think anyone has denied the 11 year cycle of the
sun.
>> This year is very cold in Europe. Back in the 70's we were heading for an ice
>> age, which also never occurred. Let's see if the global warming continues.
>> Even scientists can get tunnel vision, especially when there is money to be
>> made by going down that tunnel.
Imagine the money someone could make if they could show all the models being
wrong! Especially with the right-wing whackos of the US wanting someone to
be able to show that so very, very badly they would be willing to pay
greatly for someone to be able to disprove the known evidence.
So a lot of money could be had for doing so. Yet it has not happened (or
maybe you think it has but think there is some grand conspiracy to hide
this?)
>> Power results from the control of scarce resources, but only as long as
>> people want those scarce resources. Those who control those scarce resources
>> will always work on ensuring that there is demand for that which they
>> control. Petroleum oil is no different.
Even the oil companies have taken away their disagreement with the evidence
of global climate change based on their own product. Imagine how much *they*
would pay to have someone be able to prove all the evidence wrong. They
tried.
They failed.
>> In the mean time, as so much of our industry is dependent on petroleum oil,
>> it would be great not to waste so much of it by burning it. Petroleum oil is
>> a finite non-renewable resource. It would be irresponsible not to seek
>> alternatives, while we still have ample supplies of oil, otherwise we will
>> come down from our current oil high, with a bang. We need to reduce our
>> dependence on fossil fuels, but we should be making the change for the right
>> reason.
There are multiple reasons to do so.
>> The impetus for change will wain, if the designated reasons for
>> change are proven to be wrong.
>
> There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
>
> I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
> fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
> depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
> can start medieval times all over again.
>
> Yeah, that's the ticket.
--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds
<OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Ian Hilliard belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 17/05/13 19:36, Crabbit Bampot wrote:
>>> <http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/17/133201/97-of-climate-science-pap
>>> ers-agree-global-warming-is-man-made>
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
>>> papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and
>>> 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
>>> or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global
>>> warming.
>>>
>>> The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that
>>> took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the
>>> 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate
>>> their own studies, with nearly identical results.
>>>
>>> In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
>>> in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
>>> that anybody can check their results.
>>> </quote>
>>
>> Just because the majority say that it is so, doesn't mean that it is so.
>
> It is far more than "Just because the majority say so".
Absolutely correct. It is because multiple models from diverse disciplines,
> After swilling some grog, Ian Hilliard belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 17/05/13 19:36, Crabbit Bampot wrote:
>>> <http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/17/133201/97-of-climate-science-pap
>>> ers-agree-global-warming-is-man-made>
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
>>> papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and
>>> 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
>>> or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global
>>> warming.
>>>
>>> The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that
>>> took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the
>>> 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate
>>> their own studies, with nearly identical results.
>>>
>>> In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published
>>> in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so
>>> that anybody can check their results.
>>> </quote>
>>
>> Just because the majority say that it is so, doesn't mean that it is so.
>
> It is far more than "Just because the majority say so".
tied to measurable changes in the Earth in terms of pollution and ecosystems
paints a very clear picture. The details are, of course, not fully
understood and the exact predictions are not all the same. This is how
science works... how it *should* work.
But it has nothing to do with being based just on the majority saying
something - it has to do with the *evidence*.
>> There was a time that it was heresy to say that the Earth is not the
>> middle of the Universe.
an example where *evidence* "won the day"... but with global climate change
you are arguing *against* evidence.
Which do you think we should go with: evidence, as you do with the idea that
Earth is not in the middle of the Universe, or go *against* the evidence as
you wish to do with the idea of global climate change?
>> Now it is heresy to say that the global warming was as we headed towards the
>> peak of the sunspot cycle.
sun.
>> This year is very cold in Europe. Back in the 70's we were heading for an ice
>> age, which also never occurred. Let's see if the global warming continues.
>> Even scientists can get tunnel vision, especially when there is money to be
>> made by going down that tunnel.
wrong! Especially with the right-wing whackos of the US wanting someone to
be able to show that so very, very badly they would be willing to pay
greatly for someone to be able to disprove the known evidence.
So a lot of money could be had for doing so. Yet it has not happened (or
maybe you think it has but think there is some grand conspiracy to hide
this?)
>> Power results from the control of scarce resources, but only as long as
>> people want those scarce resources. Those who control those scarce resources
>> will always work on ensuring that there is demand for that which they
>> control. Petroleum oil is no different.
of global climate change based on their own product. Imagine how much *they*
would pay to have someone be able to prove all the evidence wrong. They
tried.
They failed.
>> In the mean time, as so much of our industry is dependent on petroleum oil,
>> it would be great not to waste so much of it by burning it. Petroleum oil is
>> a finite non-renewable resource. It would be irresponsible not to seek
>> alternatives, while we still have ample supplies of oil, otherwise we will
>> come down from our current oil high, with a bang. We need to reduce our
>> dependence on fossil fuels, but we should be making the change for the right
>> reason.
>> The impetus for change will wain, if the designated reasons for
>> change are proven to be wrong.
>
> There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
>
> I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
> fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
> depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
> can start medieval times all over again.
>
> Yeah, that's the ticket.
--
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds
GreyCloud
May 26, 2013, 2:04:44 PM5/26/13
to
petroleum... they have over 145 deep oil wells. They are over 50,000
ft. down. Google it if you don't believe it. Also, in South Africa,
there is a company that makes their own oil from pretty much the same
process. They call it abiotic oil.
William Poaster
May 26, 2013, 5:48:48 PM5/26/13
to
No need to panic about global warming:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
--
Linux -- the Ultimate Windows Service Pack
Linux is the scientific communityοΏ½s operating system of choice.
CERNοΏ½s Large Hadron Collider is controlled by Linux.
NASA and SpaceX ground stations use Linux.
DNA-sequencing lab technicians use Linux.
Really, for applications that require absolute stability,
which most scientific experiments are, Linux is the obvious choice.
http://tinyurl.com/d9ta82o
Snit
May 26, 2013, 6:03:02 PM5/26/13
to
On 5/26/13 2:48 PM, in article
0jca7a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
does not change the fact that the majority view in relevant scientists is
that global climate change is real and is largely caused by man. More than
this, though, models from multiple disciplines and found by completely
separate groups using different techniques have come to amazingly similar
conclusion on the topic.
Do we know everything about how our actions are affecting the environment?
Of course not. Do we have very, very strong evidence to support the idea
that our actions *are* affecting the environment - absolutely. This is
simply a fact.
Yes, there are nay-sayers. But the idea that their is any significant
dissent in the relevant scientific community is simply incorrect.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change>
-----
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a
formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the
last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in
2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human
influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.
-----
--
> As for Stallman, he is a repulsive person by any standard of decency.
... standard of decency or hygiene.
-- Lusotec
0jca7a-...@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster"
<w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
>> There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
>>
>> I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
>> fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
>> depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
>> can start medieval times all over again.
>>
>> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warm
> ing-is-not-real
>
> No need to panic about global warming:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
The fact there are a small number of people who disagree with the majority
>> There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
>>
>> I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
>> fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
>> depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
>> can start medieval times all over again.
>>
>> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warm
> ing-is-not-real
>
> No need to panic about global warming:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
does not change the fact that the majority view in relevant scientists is
that global climate change is real and is largely caused by man. More than
this, though, models from multiple disciplines and found by completely
separate groups using different techniques have come to amazingly similar
conclusion on the topic.
Do we know everything about how our actions are affecting the environment?
Of course not. Do we have very, very strong evidence to support the idea
that our actions *are* affecting the environment - absolutely. This is
simply a fact.
Yes, there are nay-sayers. But the idea that their is any significant
dissent in the relevant scientific community is simply incorrect.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change>
-----
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a
formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the
last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in
2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human
influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.
-----
--
> As for Stallman, he is a repulsive person by any standard of decency.
... standard of decency or hygiene.
-- Lusotec
Chris Ahlstrom
May 27, 2013, 6:02:27 AM5/27/13
to
After swilling some grog, William Poaster belched this bit o' wisdom:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
>>
>> I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
>> fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
>> depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
>> can start medieval times all over again.
>>
>> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real
Opinions are like arseholes.
> No need to panic about global warming:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Who's panicked? Just resigned.
And global warming will ultimately be a lesser worry.
The ever-increasing cost of running civilization on an infrastructure of
drained or poisoned aquifers, oceans where food fish are rare (and we start
decimating the less desirable populations), water sources poisoned by
toxic algae blooms caused by nitrogen runoff from our over-use of
fertilizers, ever-harder-to-extract fuel, etc., will force a rebirth of the
human condition. And it won't be pleasant getting there, except for a few
people at the top of the food-chain.
--
Our way is peace.
-- Septimus, the Son Worshiper, "Bread and Circuses",
stardate 4040.7.
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
>>
>> I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
>> fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
>> depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
>> can start medieval times all over again.
>>
>> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real
> No need to panic about global warming:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
And global warming will ultimately be a lesser worry.
The ever-increasing cost of running civilization on an infrastructure of
drained or poisoned aquifers, oceans where food fish are rare (and we start
decimating the less desirable populations), water sources poisoned by
toxic algae blooms caused by nitrogen runoff from our over-use of
fertilizers, ever-harder-to-extract fuel, etc., will force a rebirth of the
human condition. And it won't be pleasant getting there, except for a few
people at the top of the food-chain.
--
Our way is peace.
-- Septimus, the Son Worshiper, "Bread and Circuses",
stardate 4040.7.
William Poaster
May 27, 2013, 6:30:11 AM5/27/13
to
--
Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips.
flatfish+++
May 27, 2013, 8:40:59 AM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:30:11 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, William Poaster belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
>>>>
>>>> I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
>>>> fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
>>>> depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
>>>> can start medieval times all over again.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>>>
>>> http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real
>>
>> Opinions are like arseholes.
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, William Poaster belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
>>>>
>>>> I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
>>>> fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
>>>> depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
>>>> can start medieval times all over again.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>>>
>>> http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real
>>
>> Opinions are like arseholes.
> As you said "Opinions are like arseholes."
William Poaster true to form.
He's never had an original thought in his entire life.
That's why William Poaster is known as "The Empty Suit".
Chris Ahlstrom
May 27, 2013, 9:47:40 AM5/27/13
to
After swilling some grog, William Poaster belched this bit o' wisdom:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, William Poaster belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
>>>>
>>>> I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
>>>> fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
>>>> depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
>>>> can start medieval times all over again.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>>>
>>> http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real
>>
>> Opinions are like arseholes.
>>
>>> No need to panic about global warming:
>>>
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
>>
>> Who's panicked? Just resigned.
>>
>> And global warming will ultimately be a lesser worry.
>>
>> The ever-increasing cost of running civilization on an infrastructure of
>> drained or poisoned aquifers, oceans where food fish are rare (and we start
>> decimating the less desirable populations), water sources poisoned by
>> toxic algae blooms caused by nitrogen runoff from our over-use of
>> fertilizers, ever-harder-to-extract fuel, etc., will force a rebirth of the
>> human condition. And it won't be pleasant getting there, except for a few
>> people at the top of the food-chain.
>
> As you said "Opinions are like arseholes."
Opinion? What I list above is already well-underway, and pretty much
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, William Poaster belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
>>>>
>>>> I believe we can look forward to a time when extreme conditions, lack of
>>>> fuel/power, kill-offs of aquatic life, and other breakdowns in stuff we
>>>> depend on will greatly reduce our population and standard of living, and we
>>>> can start medieval times all over again.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's the ticket.
>>>
>>> http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real
>>
>> Opinions are like arseholes.
>>
>>> No need to panic about global warming:
>>>
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
>>
>> Who's panicked? Just resigned.
>>
>> And global warming will ultimately be a lesser worry.
>>
>> The ever-increasing cost of running civilization on an infrastructure of
>> drained or poisoned aquifers, oceans where food fish are rare (and we start
>> decimating the less desirable populations), water sources poisoned by
>> toxic algae blooms caused by nitrogen runoff from our over-use of
>> fertilizers, ever-harder-to-extract fuel, etc., will force a rebirth of the
>> human condition. And it won't be pleasant getting there, except for a few
>> people at the top of the food-chain.
>
> As you said "Opinions are like arseholes."
inevitable.
Just one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
Even fusion power ain't gonna help it when Man shits the bed.
--
Two men were sitting over coffee, contemplating the nature of things,
with all due respect for their breakfast. "I wonder why it is that
toast always falls on the buttered side," said one.
"Tell me," replied his friend, "why you say such a thing. Look
at this." And he dropped his toast on the floor, where it landed on the
dry side.
"So, what have you to say for your theory now?"
"What am I to say? You obviously buttered the wrong side."
flatfish+++
May 27, 2013, 9:56:11 AM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:47:40 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Even fusion power ain't gonna help it when Man shits the bed.
What is it with Linux FOSSies and bizarre acts involving bodily
> Even fusion power ain't gonna help it when Man shits the bed.
fluids?
GreyCloud
May 27, 2013, 3:46:20 PM5/27/13
to
On 5/27/2013 7:56 AM, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:47:40 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>
>> Even fusion power ain't gonna help it when Man shits the bed.
>
> What is it with Linux FOSSies and bizarre acts involving bodily
> fluids?
>
>
A cult of perverts, that's what.
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:47:40 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>
>> Even fusion power ain't gonna help it when Man shits the bed.
>
> What is it with Linux FOSSies and bizarre acts involving bodily
> fluids?
>
>
0 new messages