Comment A simple question... (Score 1) 48
What's to stop the bad guys from just using another encryption scheme without backdoors built into it?
What's to stop the bad guys from just using another encryption scheme without backdoors built into it?
10 while DADDY_IS_PAYING_OR_HAS_ME_IN_HIS_WILL
20 print "LIES! ";
30 print "ALTERNATIVE FACTS! ";
40 print "FAKE NEWS! ";
50 end while
You're right, I was mistaken in calling it a "survey". But my point was, did anybody verify their data?
...if the data from THIS survey was deliberately falsified to see if anybody actually checked the sources?
Someone from Microsoft criticizing the choices made by Apple that aren't terribly popular?
Color me surprised...
And, even if it were, do they think that requiring public companies to make it easier for LEOs to decrypt devices will keep terrorists from then doing their own, potentially stronger, encryption?
...I stumbled across some messages being exchanged between my manager and the president of the company. This was pre-email, some dumb Novell messaging tool from the late 80s.
He (the president) was swooning over her and telling her how he was a "one-woman kind of man" (which is funny given he was married) while she was reflecting on the wonderful night they had "walking hand in hand through the snow".
Eventually his wife found out, my manager was fired, he was divorced and had to sell the company to pay her off.
I never said anything. But my manager was so horrible I just smile thinking about karma...
...shall be receiving a MOST strongly worded response shortly.
Long story short:
The reason data is held for a period is to give the scientists who were given grants to fund their research time to do their research. Otherwise, it's harder to get funding if someone else can take the data and publish it. The withholding period is usually fairly short (~6 months).
Or, as with here in NC, Amazon will stop the associate/affiliate program in states that enact tax laws.
There have only been degreed global climate scientists for 10-15 years.
Care to cite a reference for this? Because, again, the knowledge upon which climate study is build has been accumulated for centuries. It's not like they only just started studying it in the past 10-15 years as you suggest. It's been studied for far, far longer than you seem willing to accept. [reference]
Being an "authority" in a field where even a basic understanding of the systems involved is decades or centuries away is not saying much. Particularly when actions taken based on the word of these "authorities" could cause humans to become extinct, and at the very least would cause large groups of people to endure starvation, death, economic collapse, and much lower standards of living.
Which parts of controlling our carbon emissions, preventing or slowing our alterations to the environment that are radically changing even local ecosystems will "cuase humans to become extinct"? Please, be specific.
That, and most of the historical climate data that climate scientists have to work with is from the same "massaged" pool of data from the CRU & Mann. Mann admitted he destroyed the original data. If that doesn't send up huge warning flares and red flags, then you're not being intellectually honest and are arguing purely from an ideological/political advocacy viewpoint.
Cite a source that shows the data collected by Phil Jones (which is the name you provided in your correction) is "most of the historical climate data have to work with", please. Because I don't believe that to be true. One scientist's work during one period of time in the late 90s is not "most" of any data for such a discipline. [reference]
To quote you: "I stopped reading right there." You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.
If not a troll, you definite display troll-like tendencies.
Facts have to come from reputable sources. Too many in Academia have already proven that they will lie and smear their opponents name in the mud just to prove a point.
No argument here. There are lots of people who who will lie for various causes for various reasons. However, that still doesn't invalidate a whole discipline just because a small number were dishonest.
Disagreeing with something does not equate with "speak[ing] the truth".
Neither does disagreeing with something make it a "Troll" post.
You're right, it doesn't.
You aren't an authority on the subject, so your lack of acceptance does not mean the body of knowledge is wrong.
There are no "authorities" on global climate science. That would be the equivalent of calling the first primitives to discover the wheel "authorities" on modern global transportation networks.
And here you're quite wrong. Your comparison is a incorrect: those climatologists who study the trends and data regarding the changes in global temperature trends are in fact authorities since that is what they have studied and what they do. That you don't like or agree with them doesn't remove their authority on the discipline.
But your statement is very troll-like in that, if you understand what makes one an authority but then say those climatologists aren't authorities, you're trolling this thread.
You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.
There IS NO "verified, objective scientific data". That's the whole point. If there was, there wouldn't be any debate. It's that precise lack (and "massaging" of the data that existed) that's the issue.
Again, you're quite wrong. You seem to greatly misunderstand how science works then if you think conclusive data precludes any debate. Quite the contrary, science and the collected body of data requires constant debate in order to refine our knowledge and theories. It's part of how we skeptically interrogate the universe to learn about it (to paraphrase Sagan).
If you don't understand how science works, then I hope this helps you take a step in the right direction. If you do, however, know this, then you're again exhibiting troll-like tendencies. Ones you apparent claim to be proud and unashamed to show.
And, once again, I'm modded "Troll" for being an AGW heretic and daring to speak the truth.
Disagreeing with something does not equate with "speak[ing] the truth". You aren't an authority on the subject, so your lack of acceptance does not mean the body of knowledge is wrong.
I suppose when you have no facts or arguments behind your views...
To quote you: "I stopped reading right there." You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.
If not a troll, you definite display troll-like tendencies.
I agree.
The religion of AGW has no place in a science class.
America's Got Weasels?
If all else fails, lower your standards.
