Some good news for you, m8...
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
But Fred will change. He'll get old and senile and his temperature will drop significantly >:-} ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
I'm looking for work... see my website.
Thinking outside the box...producing elegant & economic solutions.
"New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output."
Ummm.... what new research?
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
The shamans are re-fudging their data >:-} ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I'm looking for work... see my website.
Thinking outside the box...producing elegant & economic solutions.
Probably the same peer-reviewed publications that Breitbart latched onto la st week.
The Daily Telegraph probably got the story from Breitbart - UK science jour nalism isn't impressive - but haven't even bothered to offer a link back to the original paper. Somebody went to the trouble of looking at the origina l paper, and found that Breitbart had generalised from one model being pron e to exaggeration to claiming that they all were.
Jim - and his preferred sources - aren't in particularly close touch with r eality. Realistic stuff doesn't give him the thrill he seems to need.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
This one?
The link back to the original paper on Nature Geoscience doesn't work and results in this error message: Error 503 Backend is unhealthy Backend is unhealthy Guru Mediation: Details: cache-sjc3130-SJC 1506306448 155760008 Varnish cache server Ummm... right. Searching by title, I find: "Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to
I don't subscribe to Nature so I don't get to read the full contents. Reading the abstract, I suspect that the authors are saying that IPCC
5th report is somewhat pessimistic. If we some how are somehow able to make CO2 emissions decrease by 2030, we should be able to meet theimpossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation." In other words, if we pull off a miracle by 2030 and if the IPCC predictions are really excessively pessimistic, the we should be able save the planet and the Telegraph's reputation.
I didn't see that in the Breitbart article. All they did was exaggerate the claims and conclusions of the papers authors in the direction they find convenient. Of course, if the original Nature paper was available to the GUM (great unwashed masses), we could draw our own conclusions and contrive our own exaggerations.
Most people in this newsgroup tend to read and cite sources that agree with their point of view. I do the opposite and read what the opposition has to say. I know what media sources that support my position have to say. I want to know what the opposition is thinking and doing.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
te:
e.
I'll see if I can get the full text from an academic acquaintance.
ed.
There's a distinction between media sources, and bought-and-paid for source s of denialist propaganda.
Some of the more depressing right-wing media sub-contract their global warm ing content to denialist propagandists who will fill the column inches for free. They may get more advertising that way.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
I'm exactly the same, Jeff. I'm constantly checking my opinion for any trace of hypocrisy; I wouldn't suggest for someone else anything I wouldn't be happy to accept myself. But above all, I feel it's terribly important for me to have my beliefs and assertions challenged, so if there's anything that doesn't add up, I'm made aware of it and can change my thinking accordingly. However, this happens increasingly rarely nowadays, so my paradigm/ world-view must be nearing perfection.
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
The evidence of your own posts is that you like to live in a bubble, untroubled by thoughts that disturb your equilibrium.
I'm far from the only person to note that!
The other possibility is you've killfiled everyone here who ever "challenged your assertions."
s/world-view/kill-file/
-- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
Sadly, what Cursitor Doom needs to check for is ignorance, and he doesn't h ave the tools to do that. Hypocrisy is believing one thing and doing anothe r. Cursitor Doom believes a loads of nonsense he gets from the Daily Mail a nd Russia Today, and he's too gullible to realise that most of what he beli eves is vile nonsense that has been foisted on him as political propaganda.
It's more that Cursitor Doom is so far up himself that reality doesn't get a look-in.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Then, your self checking algorithm is failing. It's impossible to advocate anything in today's complex society without running into self-serving hypocrisy and exceptions. For example:
- I believe in freedom of expression, except when it endangers the public safety.
- I believe in free enterprise and commerce, except where it's necessary to subsidize startups and cushion failures.
- I believe in lowering taxes, except in areas that support my decadent and lavish lifestyle.
- I believe in alternative energy, except where it affects the value of my utility stocks.
- and so on. Such exceptions constitute a very real form of hypocrisy necessitated by the compromises that must be made in order to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. This is where absolutes fail and where expediency rules. If you really are testing your advocacy for traces of hypocrisy, you're either ignoring a substantial number of exceptions, or your testing method is failing.
Speaking of hypocrisy, you might find it amusing to read the Republican platform for the 2016 election at: My guess(tm) is in about half the recommended policy and legislative changes recommended, the current administration has done quite the opposite.
I'm never happy and it bothers me little. External conditions, that surround us in every day life, make us sufficiently different that boiler plate solutions do not apply to everyone. I often offer a technical solution to someone's problem, only to find out that they failed to mention some environmental, political, economic, or cosmetic limitation that makes my suggestion less than optimum. While I might have no problem taking my own advice, they might have some difficulties doing the same.
Fine. Please provide me with one other person in this group who was convinced solely by the power of argumentation to change their position or belief. Even if there were such a person, they would probably hesitate to admit changing their opinion in a public forum and likely keep it to themselves, which is why you will have difficulties identifying such a person.
When all evidence to the contrary is eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is deemed perfection. (My apologies to Sherlock Holmes and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle).
That which is correct, beyond any need for checking, is usually wrong.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Got it and thanks. Just one problem. I don't understand a word of it. The language, terms, acronyms, abbrev, logic, and grammar are all so confusing and dense, that I cannot tell what the authors are suggesting. Either the paper is written by climate scientists for other climate scientists in some private cipher known only to climate scientists, it's intentionally crafted to be impenetrable, or I'm deficient in some manner needed to understand the paper.
If there is any mention in the paper of back pedaling in the IPCC 5th report predictions, I don't see it, or rather I can't find it. I don't see how Breitbart managed to extract that assertion from the paper. I give up (for now) but will try to find a genuine climate scientist to help me decode the paper.
Sure. The US government supports AGW research, as long as the conclusion shows that AGW is real. I someone produces a report that contradicts the consensus, they will never receive any further government grant money and can probably say goodbye to their career. Since the government won't support research that is skeptical of AGW, it's left to US industry to support it. In other words, both sides of the argument are bought and paid for by either the government or by industry.
Drivel:
"The giveaway is in the language: 'climate change denial'
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Which is why you religiously kill file anyone who disagrees with you?
Your kill file is nearing perfection.
-- John Devereux
Plenty have people have tried. Lindzen did better than most, but his hypoth esis was falsifiable (as useful hypotheses have to be) and when tested it g ot falsified.
Overturning conventional wisdom is the royal road to success in science, bu t anthropogenic global warming has had a lot of that kind of attention, and consensus looks remarkably healthy - even Newton had problems with the orb ital precession of Mercury that it took Einstein's updates to fix - but ant hropogenic global warming has had a lot of attention and the theory looks r ock solid.
Practical predictions are more difficult. The deep ocean currents are imper fectly charted - there are now Argo buoys out there, but there is a lot of ocean and only about 3000 Argo buoys.
It would, if it looked vaguely promising. All those election contributing f ossil carbon extractors have a lot of influence.
The denialist propaganda machine doesn't do research. It's perfectly happy misinterpreting regular scientific research, and industry is perfectly well aware that anthropogenic global warming is real. They don't want to do any thing about it, because they make a lot of money out of digging up fossil c arbon and selling it as fuel, and expected to make more out of last minute emergency measures when the situation gets bad enough that the government c an be held to ransom.
her the government or by industry.
Not exactly. The government funds research on the basis of the assessed qua lity of the research being proposed. The quality is assessed by people in t he research community - Jim Inhofe doesn't get a look-in.
Industry is paying for real research, and also for denialist propaganda. Th e first tells them what is going on, and the second lets them keep on makin g money while trashing the environment.
Climate change denial is a commercially available service brought to you by the same people (and some new recruits) who told you that smoking wasn't b ad for your health. You've just linked to a small part of their output.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
You seem to be confusing "having my assertions challenged" with "having my intelligence insulted" - I will happily respond to the former but certainly not to the latter.
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
s
Cursitor Doom hasn't got any intelligence to insult. We've long since decla red open season on his gullibility, but he's yet to post anything that show s any evidence of intelligence on his part. The people who devise the click
-bait he falls for aren't all that clever either.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Hmm, I would say my opinions are always changing some.
Islam for one comes to mind. Old opinion: All religions are at some level similar.
I would then point to a Sam Harris podcast about Islam, where he says that the left is giving Islam too much of a free ride, and that they need to be called out more for the violence in their religion.
I'm working on that idea, I don't really have any Muslims friends at the moment who I can talk about it with though. So it's just festering there in the back of my brain.
George H. (Islamophobic opinions expressed on SED had little to do with my evolution.)
They don't have to be clever, only sufficiently clever to get people like him to fall for them.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.