While that may be true, consider the approach this paper used, roughly:

• --Warming up to that point was modelled and divided into sources, including effects of aerosols, solar activity, CO2 increases, etc.
• --Specific events were used to compare predictions to reality, for example the Mount Agung eruption in 1963, and those results were used to refine the model.
• --Energy usage and CO2 emission rates, among other factors, were predicted for coming decades.
• --Based on those predictions, the effects of the resultant CO2 were fed into the model and surface temperature increases were predicted (having to base predictions upon other predictions).

It's a given that any reasonable model is designed to agree well with previous known events, as this one absolutely did. The fact that it further agrees well with over 30 years of future results makes the list of past and future successful predictions so large that clearly the model has at least something going for it. In other words, this is certainly not one erratic research study that got lucky.

What's really scary is how so much of the talking points that are put forth by denialists today are addressed in this paper - from over three decades ago. Volcanoes, solar flares, natural temperature cycles, etc etc. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence for humankind's ability to collectively discuss, understand, and address complex problems!

• --There is no global DDT ban - it's perfectly legal in Africa, and if it's use was reduced there it's due to other reasons (see below).
• --Less use in DDT is largely attributed to it's diminishing effects, not Silent Spring. Not only that, it can give rise to cross-resistance and render other insecticides less efficacious.
• --DDT was increasingly being linked to health problems in humans.

The claim that Silent Spring killed untold millions is one of those falsehood that people love to slander environmentalists with. That way, we can all feel great about ignoring them!

This seems to be a common notion on slashdot, maybe due to a mix of disdain for the softer sciences and some arrogance about the ability of intelligence to triumph over everything else.

I'll just point out that there exists an entire industry dedicated to 'affect you' by what you see (or otherwise sense). It's called 'marketing' and it's extremely effective and therefore extremely profitable. Would we really be so incredibly saturated in advertisements 24/7 if human beings could easily be unaffected by it?

And PS - That bit about letting 'them' die for some sort of evolutionary goal is despicable.

Specially designed to inspire shareholder confidence if you're a believer, or to lower his tax bracket if you're a cynic.

Make sure you distinguish between the claims that are made by the researchers and the claims that are made by human resources/technology transfer/publicity departments. Anyone who has ever seen that particular machine in action will attest to its ability to transform modest scientific claims into ones would make a late-night infomercial host blush.

Which is not a bad strategy when you consider the alternative: absurdly high entrance requirements. That's the strategy that medical schools have adopted, at least up here in Canada, and it's pretty clear that trying to separate the top 1% from the top 10% for admissions doesn't make for more successful students. If anything, it selects for the hyper-competitive, the resume-builders, and/or the lucky.

Better to let in as many as possible and let the actual material decide who really has the needed ability and passion.

Well, so what? You could say something similar about music, film, and literature. Fine - that doesn't mean that the increasingly focus-tested, mass-appeal garbage we're getting in all of these media isn't worse than it used to be.

Find me any 1950's equivalents to Justin Bieber, like Elvis for example, and I will guarantee they will have more artistic merit than the Biebs.

This is amazing and one more nail in the coffin of our long-held dogma of genes being passed down from two parents, expressed but otherwise unaltered, then passed down to our children, all with just a little bit of mixing and mutation. From epigenetic modifications, to massive variances of stomach flora even between relatives, now to food's ability to affect our very gene expression... we've got some serious reconsidering to do about what makes us who we are.

Very cool.

Maybe you or the average geek can't be expected to know this, but this idea is not at at all new. The concept that an author is not the authority on his/her own work has been common, even accepted, in literary analysis for decades. It's sometimes called the 'intentional fallacy'. Calling the author a 'medium' is just the article's way of making an old idea seem new and sexy.

But even if you wouldn't go as far as saying that the interpretor sets the meaning, maybe we could all agree that going back and modifying a work that you've made is a shitty thing to do if that work already holds meaning for millions of people. As is pointed out in TFA, this is exactly what Lucas did that started this debate

Side note - literary analysis can have practical ramifications after all! Who knew?

You did say vacation, right?

The library cost a hefty $81 million, but the alternative was expanding the old library's capacity - and that was estimated at $67 million. So for $14 million, the university gets a brand new library with all the prestige and sex appeal of this new, high-tech approach with lower operating costs to boot. And anyway, the library's namesakes donated $25million, an amount that was probably increased by the prospect of the donator's getting to slap their name all over this exciting new building. What I'm saying is that this was a no-brainer for the university in terms of cost/benefit.

Now, whether you want to trade a building full of beautiful old books which you can peruse at your own convenience, and staffed with generally knowledgeable bibliophiles, for a mechanized building with 5-minute delay times on book requests and far fewer human employees... that's not so straightforward I hope.

The administrator's defense: The university could not access twitter from behind the firewall!