"What matters is volume, not surface area."

Newsflash: if it's white it reflect back sunlight regardless of the thickness.

It all grew back in a "warming world" with rising Co2 in five years and isn't a mile thick. No shit. It'll thicken, don't you worry about it.

Gore said it would be gone by now. The opposite happened.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

Which part of "has genes it can switch on to handle this" did you not understand?

Coral doesn't "suffer" the very delicate animal either keeps growing or dies.

Bad analogy.

All XP gets regular updates. They have to or the net would break.

What is Turkey actually saying? What are the pesky details?

Why don't you look at the video and tell me which parts are false.

I've seen it. I was sorta surprised. If it's accurate (and I haven't checked all of it) then it does indeed raise a few questions.

What if the video is accurate?

Have you seen it?

If not then yours is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance.

Go watch it then we can talk.

No question a lot of people died.

Did you look this up?

The word was created in the 1940s decades after the Armenian thing. Please verify this for yourself.

I watched the video.

I have to say it does make a good case for the Turkish point of view.

If it's non-factual it should be debunked.

But you might want to have a look at it.

I was, I admit, kinda surprised at it, it did not meed my assumptions at all and pointed out how little I knew.

Go watch it and see what you think. Tne we can talk about it on an informed basis.

No, outside experts are scientists. Anyone can look up their credentials.

Lobbyists are, well, lobbyists. They are registered and this can be looked up.

Straw Man argument.

Studies don't identify patients by name. They say things like "a 29 year old female in Iowa". It's not even fucking legal to identify a patient in a public medical report. You'd lose your license for that, not that any reputable journal would ever publish it.

"science, by definition, cannot be secret."

This gets modded to 0?

You want secret science? Tamiflu. Doctors can't get data on the failed trials, it's withheld y the pharma co's.

Government are told by the company it works and they provided the results of some of their trials but not all. Government everywhere were talked into stockpiling this stuff. Turns out it takes about 12 hours off a weeks worth of symptoms. Vitamin C does better than that by the government own studies.

Rumsfeld pushed tamiflu through, one of his companies makes the stuff.

If the GOP wants to stop this kind of shit why would you want to stop that?

The only valid secrecy is national security - nukes an stuff, and things can already be redacted because of this.

Patient names don't show up in studies. The may use first names, initials, numbers, but there are laws about medical privacy.

If you have to have secret laws based on lies you can't call that science. That's propaganda.

Bullshit. Provide evidence what you said is true.

That's not how medical research works but go ahead and convince me otherwise.

Plus you and I both know we're not talking about medical data here. Christ knows there's enough secrets all there already; doctors already complain big pharma withholds information and there is an initiative to try to fix this. See Dr. Ben Goldacre's Ted talk entitled "Batting bad science"

Note also secret data is considered bad science.

You can only discredit science with facts, verifiable facts. If it was discredited then it was garbage. It cannot be discredited with falsehoods.

Do you even logic?

"Science of course is always correcting mistakes. That's what it's all about." Freeman Dyson

"An earlier version of this general effort used language that would forbid reference to models in policy making."

Hi. Math major here. Let me explain something about models.

They are a mathematical simulation of a natural phenomenon.

The test of a model is how well it tracks reality. If if predicts behaviour correctly we can have some confidence in the model.

The error bars of the climate models are 75%. That means a chimp tossing a coin could guess better. You can't make public policy from that.

75% error looks like this: 2 + 2 = 7

The climate models are 25 years old now and with refinements over the years should be pretty good. But they're not, they're so bad you can pretty much throw them out.

Freeman Dyson warned about this:
"Their computer models are full of fudge factors."
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mu...

NASA pointed out they were wrong (and confirnmed Dyson) in 2010.
8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Here's a graph of all the climate models compared to actual temperature measurements. See the divergence?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

"When your hypothesis doesn't agree with nature, it's wrong" - Richard Feynman.

Do they sell the copper in secret too? Maybe I'm crazy but don't annual reports from mining companies list minor details how much yield the mine makes to entice investors.

If you're gonna make shit up at least base it on reality. Secret science that relies on secret mine output. Good God man listen to yourself, you're advocating just letting Corporations call the shots. What do we even need government for? Just let the Corporations run it all. /me - runs away screaming.