Comment 35 is not that ambitious (Score 0, Redundant) 146
35 tablets isn't that many. Apple must have sold 10 million iPads by now.
35 tablets isn't that many. Apple must have sold 10 million iPads by now.
Take for example the revelation that China is growing weary of North Korea and could soon be in a position to cease supporting the countries government - that has the potential to seriously damage the current relationship between North Korea and China, causing North Korea to stop listening to Chinese suggestions or even back away from the negotiating table completely.
On the other hand, it could make Kim Jong-Il sit up and realise how little support he has from China and think more seriously about pissing any more people off. It might improve China's relationship with the rest of the world as they recognise that China, despite its own human rights violations, are not prepared to prop up a regime as unpleasant as North Korea's. "Damaging the current relationship between North Korea and China" might well be a good thing; it is difficult to predict.
Most of those State Department cables while embarrassing are not criminal not unethical in anyway and leaking them does nobody any good.
I'd agree that these leaks are not terribly damaging to any government (at least of those released so far). There are a few that may expose unethical behaviour (e.g. the kidnapping case) but some actually make the governments involved look better in my eyes.
Example 1: evidence of Gordon Brown attempting to intervene in the Gary McKinnon extradition case. I had no idea he had done so.
Example 2: evidence of China's decline of support for North Korea. I suspected China's support was a bit half-hearted but couldn't understand why they propped the regime up at all.
So if the leaks aren't damaging, and actually show some good work is being done behind the scenes (and exposing some unethical behaviour), why not release them? Less secrecy may reduce the level of paranoia in the world. It's embarrassing for the US to be shown that they spy on the UN, but everyone knew it anyway, so who cares? Man up and face the music. I think Wikileaks has done everyone, especially the US government, a big favour.
Speaking as a caver, it could well be a shakehole (sinkhole). It's not the classic shape for it but they vary in shape and size. It's big, but not enormous. If it is a shakehole it certainly won't have broken any records.
As a first step, check some geological maps. If you're above limestone, I'd say: case closed, it's a shakehole. Yes, it's above a cave (or at least where a cave used to be!) The first photo of the "new metal" looks suspiciously like limestone.
Well, take the prize for Physics:
USA 25.4
Germany 20.0
UK 14.8
As the wealthiest and most populous of first world nations, you'd expect the US to be top. But try dividing those numbers by GDP or population and the US suddenly looks a hell of a lot less impressive.
There seem to be a lot of people complaining about it, but I *like* the current Gnome interface. It's simple, straightforward, has plenty of information available in minimal space and is pretty enough. OSX drives me nuts and I don't like the idea of GnomeShell or Unity. I like having a taskbar. I don't like having to click buttons or move my cursor to see which windows I have open. Evolution rather than revolution please.
Yes, Wales *is* part of Great Britain. GP is incorrect.
Great Britain = England + Wales + Scotland
You know, the whole "victims are to blame if they didn't make the crime impossible" meme is starting to rub me the wrong way.
No doubt, some people should have secured their computers better. But, no, that doesn't automatically give anyone right to do something just because they can.
There are millions of homes out there that just about anyone who isn't a quadriplegic _can_ break in. If nothing else, an axe takes care of most doors and a simple brick can defeat most windows.
What rubs me the wrong way is people equating homes with online computers. There seems to me a significantly smaller crime being committed by someone illegally accessing a computer that I own than entering my home.
I also have more of an emotional response when considering personal property than government property; even if we equate virtual property with private property, this is more like someone wandering around an unsecured military base than a private home.
Your axe comment isn't really appropriate either, as the systems were unsecured. Again, even if we equate virtual property with private property, it was more like trespass than breaking and entering.
It's simply untrue that climate models have been unable to make accurate predictions.
You complain that climate change deniers are not taken seriously, but when you keep making assertions that are blatantly false, what do you expect?
Now, let me summarise the situation.
We have:
1/ evidence that the Earth is warming extremely quickly
2/ evidence that we have significantly increased the CO2 proportion in the atmosphere
3/ basic chemistry/physics shows that enough 2/ leads to 1/
4/ a huge mountain of scientific research that shows that 2/ is sufficient for 1/
5/ a dramatic scientific consensus that 4/ is correct
6/ no credible competing theories to explain 1/
Now presumably you dispute none of this, except that you think 4/ is wrong (despite 5/). And you have no 6/ either. Correct?
Which it may, as I said. Which doesn't make my sentence "incorrect".
Sorry, but it is incorrect. The historical record does show warming following increased CO2 emissions, and not just due to feedback loops. The years since the industrial revolution being a case in point.
And this is why the warmers are losing the battle for public opinion: they cannot engage in rational debate without attacking any questioners as enemies and shills, or ignorant puppets. New facts and points of view are disallowed just as they are in a religious conclave.
I don't think the battle for public opinion is being lost. The current slashdot debate is strongly behind the scientists, whereas, say, five years ago, it would have been the opposite.
I don't think it's unreasonable to discount the opinions of those who disregard overwhelming scientific consensus, whether it's evolution, climate change, the link between smoking and cancer, the Copernican theory, or whatever. If you're proposing that the orthodoxy is incorrect, at the very least you need to have a credible alternative theory.
There is, but of what? You won't acknowledge any doubt or gaps in scientific knowledge whatsoever.
I'm happy to acknowledge that there is doubt and gaps in our scientific knowledge, in climatology as much as any field. That doesn't mean we can throw out working theories with mountains of evidence behind them and disregard the views of the huge majority of experts. You can't just say "oh, there's some uncertainty" and disagree with the model, especially since there is no other candidate!
It is possible that our model of climate change is wrong; it's just extremely unlikely at this stage. I anticipate only refinement from here as our knowledge grows more complete.
But you refuse to even acknowledge that the historical record shows only warming followed by CO2
Your sentence is incorrect. The climate history may show that CO2 release follows warming, but that does not mean that warming does not follow increased CO2 proportions. In any case, the current period of warming seems to quite clearly follow an increase of CO2.
If you think the article "confirms that fact" then you clearly haven't read it.
Seriously, I could carry on debating this point with you, but I can't be arsed. On the one side of the debate we have mountains of data, consistent theories, and models, and a pretty complete scientific consensus.
On the *other* side of the debate, we have a series of quacks, credulous idiots, and some of the media.
There is an abundance of information out there, and anyone not convinced by now is either insufficiently informed or has a religious-style determination not to believe it. I assume you are the latter; no amount of arguing from myself will convince you.
We *know* through geological records that this planet has undergone many changes in climate, including ice, flood, fire, drought, etc. Scientists *think* - based on the limited evidence available - that greenhouse gasses are the culprit. This time. Scientists also *know* that mankind, through industry and machinery, produces greenhouse gasses. Therefore mankind must be the cause.
More like: we *know* that the Earth is warming faster than at any other time in its history. We *know* that this coincides with a dramatic release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by humanity. We *know* (though basic chemistry) that enough CO2 released into the atmosphere will cause warming. Scientists think, because of a huge number of studies, that our release of gases is sufficient to explain the warming. There is also no other good candidate to explain the warming. Therefore humanity is almost certainly causing the warming.
I can't find the reference, but recall a study published last year that showed the bovine population - both dairy and meat - producing more greenhouse gasses than all of mankind.
Emissions caused by agriculture are generally assumed to be caused by "mankind".
but when we speak in a geological time frame even as short as man's sojourn on this planet... there is simply insufficient evidence to be certain.
I can tell you're not that familiar with the concept, but we do have a process known as the "scientific method" that allows us to evaluate the evidence and decide how confident we can be in its conclusions.
Should we shut down our economies and destroy our industry just because the climate is changing, just like it always has? Definitely not! It's just something life has to adapt to.
There have been several studies that have indicated that dealing with the cost of climate change is likely to be drastically more expensive than trying to avoid it in the first place.
Even if this wasn't true, I personally consider an economy growing at a slower rate a price worth paying for a habitable environment.
The above is assuming that reducing our CO2 emissions will actually harm industry. Developing and switching to new technologies and practices may actually prove a stimulus to the economy.
An appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if it is being used in formal logic: "this is so because so-and-so says so". It is perfectly reasonable to trust an expert who is speaking of a field they are expert in: "I believe this is true because an expert believes this conclusion is correct from the evidence".
Trusting experts is a vital heuristic that humans use all the time. Human civilisation as we know it would not work without it.
"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs
