Looks like you're right. I must have gotten my links mixed up. Thank you to those who pointed this out.

Anyway, here is a link to one paper. It isn't the only one.

Pardon me... do you see anywhere here where I claimed it was responsible for "all" the melting?

Attributing words to me that I didn't write is the only lie here. Why did you do that?

What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"? Because it doesn't conform to your world-view? That's name-calling, not an argument.

Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data. This is what allowed him (and others) to show the massive amount of manipulation that is done to data that comes out of NCDC, and GISS in particular. GISS has been widely criticized for questionable manipulation of its data sets, and in fact not long ago it was found (by who? your "anti-science" Steve Goddard that NCDC was improperly "infilling" as much as 40% of its data in some cases from temperature stations that were offline or did not even exist.

Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.

Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.

Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets. It doesn't have to be "a conspiracy" or "lying", if they all work with the same questionable data. This is a valid point that people have been making for well over a decade.

So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones.

You suspect incorrectly. My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of course, it's not all right here on my hard drive. But I do have it. Don't expect me to post it all here on Slashdot. Regardless, your "suspicions" are irrelevant.

I see you didn't read my comment very well, AND have poor analysis skills. First, the conclusion is drawn from the second paper, which references the first. Second, the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for.

Deep ocean warming was the last gasp attempt to show that the CO2-based warming models were sound, by discovering the "missing heat" that they predict. There is none. Therefore the CO2-based warming models are unsound.

You can try to obfuscate this fact all you like, but it really doesn't get much simpler than that.

Seriously? Do you know absolutely nothing about the subject you are discussing, and pretending to refute me on?

Even the latest IPCC AR report, which is of course based largely on the questionable mentioned data above, admitted that warming in the last 15 years has been a paltry 0.075 degrees C. Read it yourself. 10 seconds on Google can find the actual report.

If there wasn't a real "pause", why would Pachauri say this in 2012? Doesn't IPCC represent what alarmists have been claiming are the majority of "mainstream scientists"?

Hadley Centre/CRU temperature records -- the ones that largely started this whole alarmism thing -- themselves now show no warming for over 17 years.

This continued claiming that the trends in temperature data are significantly upward, when the actual "trend" is far smaller than the error bars, must stop. It's garbage science.

That's okay. Since you can't be bothered to google it yourself, I'll help GP a bit and show you one.

If you don't believe, try looking HERE, and HERE.

I have quite a collection of official government raw data that show a very different truth than what NOAA claims.

Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now. Their last best hope for explaining why their CO2-warming climate models didn't correspond with reality was that the "missing heat" was hiding in the deep ocean.

Alas, THIS PAIR OF PAPERS shows rather solidly that there isn't any "missing heat" being stored in the deep oceans.

Too bad, so sad. Which is sarcasm, of course. People should be celebrating (and some are). But too many are so caught up in their ties to research grants or their "CO2 religion" to admit they're looking more foolish by the day.

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.

And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. The satellite record has shown a slight but real cooling trend for a decade and a half, and a year that has actually been one of the COOLEST on record. Not the coldest ever, but right down there in the bottom 10.

Also, sea level is not rising. That is to say, it isn't rising any faster today than it has for the last couple of hundred years. About 1-1.5 mm per year, on average.

The amount of fudging that NOAA and its NCDC have to accomplish to make this year actually look warm, much less a record, is nothing short of incredible. I mean that word literally: in-credible.

I meant to say:

Freedom of speech is an area in which legislators are obliged to tread very carefully, and this kind of situation is especially full of traps, because it borders so closely on "thought crime".

In the U.S. they are different. But this statute is trying to link them, and I'm not sure that would stand up to a Constitutional test.

One thing our Supreme Court established long ago is that government cannot establish what is obscene by statute. It must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Look up the Miller Test.

And that is why they worded it this way. They aren't making artificial depictions of child pornography illegal; they're simply making them illegal *IF* they fail the Miller Test. But that's redundant, because things that fail the Miller Test are already, by definition, obscene.

So it's a law with no apparent purpose except grandstanding. Unless its purpose was to change the punishment for this particular obscene material.

I am not defending child pornography. But any responsible statute has to balance the good it does with the potential harm (because there is almost always some of both). Freedom of speech is an area in which legislators are obliged to tread very carefully.

This kind of argument deserves to be taken out behind the woodshed and shot dead.

The question here wasn't what someone is willing to risk. It was about what is LEGAL. And to answer your question: YES, as long as something I do is LEGAL, I am not going to cower in a corner and be afraid of the damage false prosecution would do to my perceived character. To do so would be abject cowardice.

Having said that, I do not intentionally involve myself in any way with ANY kind of depictions of child pornography, real or fake, simply because I find it morally objectionable. But in a free and rational society, morality informs the law, not the other way around. They are two very different things.

YES, they ARE! It's a search engine. Changing the order of the search results changes EVERYTHING.

And by their own admission, they're doing based on [A] payment, and [B] their subjective perception of whether the content is real.

I repeat: that *IS* modifying search results, and they're doing it for money.

When I search, I'm not searching for the highest bidder.

This is why I am using Google less and less now. I have actually started using Bing (which in some ways isn't much better), and I'm giving DuckDuckGo a serious try.

I think the vast majority of the votes are in by now, and "Surveillance For The Purpose Of Targeted Ads" was voted just plain evil.

I do not believe this is true. I was aware of the SCOTUS decision but I've not even heard of this statute. Can you provide a reference?

s/Haseltine/Haselton damn you autocorrect

It should probably be pointed out that this is the primary difference between UK and US in this regard.

Some years back -- maybe 6 or 8 years ago, I guessing, I don't really remember -- they U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for something to be "child pornography" it had to be recordings of real children (i.e., picture or video) and it had to be real pornography.

Now, IANAL either, but I believe States can regulate something like that as "obscene" material, but not child pornography. And they would risk the state law getting overturned by SCOTUS again.

You can say the same thing about Microsoft. If they were still doing human-interface-efficiency work, they wouldn't have tried to make a "flat" interface. (Or for that matter, copied by so many others.) "Flat" is nothing more than a fad, and a destructive one; it throws away valuable feedback cues.

Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that Haseltine is wrong about at least one thing. Not in principle, but in practice:

This isn't a "wrong" statement, it's just irrelevant. What you have to consider, when you move the lines faster, is not the total amount of labor, but the amount of labor per time.

If the line moves 4 times faster, for 1/4 the time, then you need 4 times the laborers... for 1/4 the time. You don't get to multiply people the same way you can speed.