"But I just don't understand how people think there could be such a worldwide conspiracy in the climate science community to fudge the science."

I don't think there is a "conspiracy" either.

Collective human social behavior, that is all.

Try reading what I said. I said: "If you think they won't suddenly change their research interests when it is necessary to do so in order to continue to receive a paycheck, then you really don't understand the reality of what we are as human beings. There is nothing wrong with that of course."

Is there something wrong with that? No, people change their interests all the time to go where the money is.

Next I said: "What would be wrong would be to fudge the science to collect a paycheck. But if you think that people can consistently draw the ethical line there just because they have Ph.D. after their name, then you are a fool."

This is a hypothetical, generalized statement. Perhaps you misunderstood this. It is very clear to me that this statement does not imply that anyone that I know of is doing that, but that some scientist somewhere, probably is, even if in subtle ways that they can fool themselves about despite maintaining a belief that they would never falsify data and always maintain solid ethical standards. It also says that if someone is doing this, it would be wrong. That is all it says. Capisce?

Certainly if I knew of anyone doing that, I would have a duty to do something about it. But I don't. So I suggest you read things much more carefully, and if it's unclear, seek clarification before jumping to conclusions.

The real point is of course, that my statement is about the fact that humans behave according to incentives. This is always true despite the fact that we can simultaneously tell ourselves that we are acting rationally. We can act rationally sometimes, as in, we have the *potential* to exec. decisions based on rational thought. But that doesn't mean that this is always what we do, or that we ever do it at all. Most of the time in fact, human beings just do what they want, and rationalize it later. What is also true, is that we are nearly incapable of distinguishing which came first, the conclusion, or the thoughts leading up to it.

Yet many people believe that "people are rational." This is hogwash, and a self-delusion.

In the limit, there is some level of stress, for which any human being will act against their most deeply held moral principles.

At lower levels of stress, most of us also tend to engage in subtle deviations from perfect ethical conduct. Yet, we will vociferously deny this, or seek out social groups who affirm our modified ethics as still being ethical. We will go to great efforts to be part of an "in group" as well as to maintain our self concept.

These factors are at play in all human endeavors. It is most of the reason why all political systems throughout history ultimately lead to catastrophe, and why great screw-ups in science can occur.

Exactly what is going on with AGW, well I don't think anyone really knows for sure. Hopefully, time will tell.

Wow. This is a really good reminder of the importance of understanding just what science really is. Along with a concise definition.

A question: Are there really no falsifying observations stated with the AGW hypothesis? And if there are none, why not? WTF is going on?

I work in electronics engineering, and recently got reclassified from a technologist to an engineer position. Part of that process involved me having to convince management that >70% of my time is spent doing work consistent with their "R&D Science and Engineering" job description. Part of that description involved using the scientific method. Engineers, however, don't write papers so much as produce products. The scientific method is used constantly in developing and testing designs. Since we don't usually explicitly and formally state hypotheses, it is easy to forget the rigorous definition.

My brain is full (along with my stomach--thankfully). I'm going to have to sit and just contemplate about this for a while. And perhaps read some of my scientist colleagues papers where they explicitly state hypothesis, to see how they do it.

No, there is no argument against Creationism, because there doesn't need to be any argument against Creationism. There is simply no evidence, as in none whatsoever, to support it. Therefore it is nothing more than a supposition, not worth anyone's time.

Which is entirely different from global warming/climate change, whatever the f*ck they are calling it today. The arguments against which are that 1. the evidence in support of it is flawed; 2. the scientists who argue for it may have or likely have been influenced by the incentive inherent in their own need to collect a paycheck; 3. That political persons and entities most definitely have been corrupted by said incentives.

Two entirely different things. In the case of climate change, the first argument against should, eventually, be resolved by solid facts. The 2nd and 3rd arguments are extremely difficult if not impossible to refute. The implications are that IF you expect people who are at this point skeptical to be convinced by your arguments, you had better be polite and professional when you state your views. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

I have reached the point where I simply trust no one on this. This is after being strongly in agreement that global warming was occurring, was probably caused by humans, and probably would cause trouble if something wasn't done. That is entirely decoupled from what I think or may have thought *should* be done, and whether or not I believe that humans are capable of doing whatever needs to be done without screwing things up even worse. Back to the point...

The more the climate change people crystalize into a faction, which assumes things about anyone who is skeptical and starts calling names like "denialist" etc., rather than politely explaining their position no matter how long it takes, the less I trust any of them.

I work with scientists at a national laboratory. If you think they won't suddenly change their research interests when it is necessary to do so in order to continue to receive a paycheck, then you really don't understand the reality of what we are as human beings. There is nothing wrong with that of course. What would be wrong would be to fudge the science to collect a paycheck. But if you think that people can consistently draw the ethical line there just because they have Ph.D. after their name, then you are a fool.

Finally I have only ever experienced bona-fide intolerance, to the point of nearly having someone spit in my face simply because I offered a contrary position as a purely intellectual exercise, from some people on one particular side of the political spectrum. I won't say which. But the answer is the ironic one. And the ones currently doing most of the name calling.

So you are shooting yourselves in the foot folks. As soon as this name calling "denialist" bullshit started, you signed the check for your own demise. If you were really working from objectivity, you would have been smarter than that.

Well if the cops just happen to get the wild idea that you might have some illegal drugs on you, you may find yourself in a hospital getting fucked up the ass by all sorts of medical apparatus, with no option to decline. Like this: http://www.policestateusa.com/...

This is the monster we have created, and now have to live with. And it's starting to eat us. And you are not exempt from having one of these "mistakes" happen to you.

A kid with a decent $15 multimeter is way ahead of one with no meter at all. There is nothing wrong with cheap DMMs, as long as their limitations are understood. I have some kit Elenco DMMs for about $15 that are useful in many circumstances. I also have very good bench DMMs by Fluke and Tek. And middle of the road handheld 4.5 digit DMMs. All have their place. Any one of them is infinitely superior to nothing.

No.

The Measurement Category (CAT I,II,III,IV, etc.) ratings vary all over the place, with the worst having no rating or a questionable one. If you are working on live circuits in an industrial setting (circumstances which have many onerous requirements for safety) then this matters A LOT. Because, if you are measuring the voltage of a 480VAC bus with an under-rated DMM, and a voltage spike hits it that sparks over internally, the under-rated DMM is going to turn into a 480V arc-flash disaster right in your hands. That is why Fluke DMMs are worth $400-600 for the top models, because they have the internal clearances and beefy transient suppression/protection circuit elements. As well as accuracy.

I didn't understand this stuff out of ignorance when I started working in an industrial (national, research lab) 15 years ago. Their oppressive safety training requirements have changed me over the years. Now I really appreciate it. Because despite all the effort to drive home the point, it still goes in one ear and out the other for most folks.

I spent a lot of time as a kid playing with very high voltages making sparks, at very low currents. So I didn't realize that a 480VAC bus could produce a massive ball of plasma which could melt my face off. Now I understand, fortunately through opening my mind, rather than getting hurt.

Keep learning!

"Business NEVER does things for the common good - ever."

So tell us who does?

So what? Let the people figure out how to be less vulnerable. Letting them take a shot at the crooks would go a long way toward fixing this! We don't need another stupid law. You can be sure that whatever the government does will just f*ck things up worse, or have some diabolical hidden agenda.

It's not that simple. The energy released by fusion is mostly in the neutrons, which aren't so good at converting to heat and blast. Our nukes are fusion boosted fission weapons as the AC and tp1024 stated. They are dirty, radiological weapons by design. Read: http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/...

Let's criminalize things other people do that we don't like but which don't deprive us of life, property, or liberty. Then tomorrow, let's bitch and whine about the NSA and the growing police state! Yeah, isn't cognitive dissonance a wonderful thing!

Illegal to own? No. Read the regs. It is illegal to enter into commerce promoted as a pointing device. There is no law against possessing lasers of any type.

Obviously. Check out market-ticker.org, where among other political/economic rantings, the author frequently delves into in-depth discussions on Blackberry and it's technical characteristics.

You might even learn a thing or two about the real reasons health care is so expensive in the US (if you are in the US and care about that.)

If this was an OD due to illegal drugs, then it's likely that it wouldn't have occurred if the drugs were simply legal. You cannot "know your dose" with illegal drugs because you: 1. don't know what drug it really is at all; 2. don't know the concentration or purity. The best way to reduce ODs would be to legalize everything, then all the info on how to dose and minimize adverse health consequences could be kept out in the open.

Wrong. Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant suffered minor damage, and came close to a meltdown situation before being stabilized by "hook and crook" methods.