I was just thinking this.

The GP said "even an accusation" and I was thinking "someone doesn't have to be guilty in order to accuse them!!!"

So the problem isn't the people downloading it, so much as the way that it's perceived.

I recall India is currently voting on legislation to make child sexual abuse the only crime in the country that sets a "guilty until proven innocent" precedent.

Frightening!

It's pretty interesting that a couple of random phone calls "Mr xxx is a pedophile" would pretty much destroy most people's lives.

Doesn't that underscore a fundamental breakage in our social system?

You can be banned from several of those things for even being ACCUSED of abusing a child, even if it's absurd and false.

But I do agree, this is hardly a felony. I'm sure they simply shoehorned it into some existing law like "interrupting government operations" which is intended for a variety of uses.

The oil spill covers over 10,000 square miles.

Why must a photographer run over containment booms in order to get a picture of a small section of oil slick?

Besides, all the good pictures are from helicopters anyway. You can't obtain the scope of this from the surface.

I'm not sure why you're arguing this so strenuously, other than to pretend to toss around your (air quotes) expert knowledge.

Haha.

Win.

Well, I know several people, for around the price of a nice SUV, that outfitted their homes to be both electricity and carbon-neutral. They have a nice high-efficiency refrigerator and freezer and regular oven and heat their water by solar power.

They have solar panels with a 75 year lifespan that actually put power BACK INTO the grid for most of the day and the freezer cycles off during while they're sleeping, relying on residual heat and good insulation to keep everything frozen while solar power isn't available. A small bank of non-toxic batteries in the basement provides power for LED lights and a computer or two during the evenings and heat-pumps buried deep into the soil keep the internal temperature VERY nice winter, fall, spring and summer.

But their neighbor installed a big pool and a home theater and bought a Porche.... spending roughly the same amount, but with no environmental benefits.

Which should we encourage, as a culture?

Right now we strongly encourage the latter.

Is that right?

ROFL!!! I was reading with at least an eye for factual statements... but wow... this is just silly

What a fucking retard. Thermodynamics applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS. This paper is a giant crock of ignorant blogger spooge.

There are HUNDREDS of rebuttals online. The simple fact is that in the caculations, they used equations that ASSUME a radiative black body is at "thermal equilibrium" (which the Earth is not) and then use those calculations to prove that..... get this... the Earth is at thermal equilibrium and therefore cannot heat up.

You must recognize that their claim of the invalidity of the atmospheric "greenhouse effect" is absolute bullshit. The moon maintains an average surface temperature of -31C, which is consistent with the net solar absorption and radiation of a similarly constituted black body (because it does not have an atmospheric greenhouse) and the Earth maintains a notably higher temperature due to that same atmospheric effect that they concluded (and also assumed) was invalid. Not to mention Venus which maintains a temperature almost 300 degrees too hot, due to its dense atmosphere.

Oh my GOD, I can't believe they published that. What a crock of shit.

You should know that it was not "peer reviewed". That journal uses an "invitation review" which means all they did was submit a few friend's reviews along with it, which was sufficient for that particular journal, but they were refused publication in about a dozen others first.

What a fucking tool.

Uhm.

The scientific basis of climate change in the IPCC paper (the GW1 paper) has been more thoroughly peer reviewed than any scientific study in the history of mankind.

However, the later sections, which try to establish the POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS of the proven research are what we're talking about here, and they were stated to have used "grey sources" from non-government publications, non-reviewed estimates, etc.

In fact, it was the scientists themselves (from the original GW1 paper) who found these newest errors.

You seem to see some sort of vast cabal of conspiring scientists... when I think you're just digging for bites to troll on.

Hah.

This sounds like my 5 year old niece trying to reason out why she shouldn't have to put shoes on to go outside.

"you NEVER let me do what I want. I hate you." :-)

I'm sorry? In College Station, Texas, the humidex today is 52C

Yikes.

Ahh yes, but alarming everybody into a panic over domestic terrorist that has killed fewer people than FREAK WIND EVENTS during the last 10 years is totally justified, I guess.

There are very few scientists who will side with you here, but you can keep shouting if you want. I wouldn't want you to feel maligned or unimportant.

Again, the paper in question was not investigating the scientific basis of the climate change, that paper has never been found to have significant errors.

This is a DIFFERENT section of the report, which is designed to use "non-scientific" input in order to ascertain a POLITICAL impact of potential changes that were concluded in the scientific paper, separately.

Try to keep them separate, because they are.

The scientific paper (WG1) is different than this paper. The scientific paper discussing potential changes in temperature and sea level have been peer reviewed and HAVE NOT been found in error in any way.

The paper that is referenced is a different one, trying to understand the POLITICAL consequences of the concluded changes. These errors were made in this document, which by it's stated purpose, would use "grey" material from non-reviewed sources in order to try to build a broader picture.

The conclusions ARE NOT in question here, merely the potential political consequences.

Make sure you understand the difference.

I have to point out... (and as someone said above)

There are four volumes in the report, the report of which you speak uses "grey material" from goverment, industry and private sources that cannot be found anywhere else. In this case they used a government source for the percentage of land below sea level, unfortunately the Dutch govt got it wrong but that is about impacts and has nothing to do with the science. The scientific volume (WG1) only uses peer-reviewed sources and nobody has yet pointed out any errors in WG1, in fact the people who pointed out the 2035 error were contributors to WG1.

Note the prominent link directly above the reports to their statement about the 2035 mistake. The IPCC paper is widely recognised by scientific institutions as one of the most robust peer-review exercises ever conducted and it has been forthright about recognizing its mistake.

Agreed. BUT, throwing out the conclusions is advocated by many, which probably isn't a pragmatic solution either. That's called ignorance.

Then again, it seems pretty ignorant to claim Holland will be under water in 10 years too.

The truth (as fucking always) is probably smack in the middle between the blow-hards.

Neat how that is almost ALWAYS the truth, isn't it?