Next time try reading whole sentences. Then you might actually understand what you're being told.

I see that you ask: Might I suggest to you that when you find something someone quotes from them to be demonstrably wrong, you demonstrate that it is in fact wrong. Here is one vein:

Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about the divergence in "Myth vs. Fact Regarding the Hockey Stick"--a thread on realclimate.

Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record - as I believe was done in the case of the 'hockey stick' - is dubious to say the least.

This drove a response from realclimate team (M. Mann):

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

With some effort, the methodologies were reproduced and it became clear that MM was not be entirely truthful.

But RC has stuck its party line--even now after some of the leaked emails from CRU show us that this particular fudging technique was quite common and applied to manipulate data more than once.

Take a breath. Think about what I said. I didn't say they weren't scientists working for important climate research institutions. They are, but somehow you think your assertion of those facts cuts against what I said. It does not.

The problem with realclimate is not they don't have some good, accurate, etc information. The problem is that when someone from their 'tribe' is caught doing bad science they don't play the honest broker. They man the fences, truth be damned--no matter now glaringly in the wrong they are.

So I stand by my claim. realclimate is too partisan and too dogmatic to be used as a reliable source of information.

Again, you don't get the logic. The core science is right; yet, the conclusion being drawn does not follow. The people blogging at realclimate are the same ones monopolizing the lead author positions at the IPCC. So there is no independence here and no meaning to the repetition.

The question here is: "how can they tell that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to CO2".

Yes they can measure carbon ratios; no, the data does not necessarily mean what they claim it means. Yes, the changes are consistent with burning fossil fuels, but that does nothing on its own to explain why the equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher today than before.

Let me illustrate this:

Bin(t) - Biological intake of CO2
Bout(t) - Biological emission of CO2
Oin(t) - Inorganic absorption of CO2
Fout(t) - Burning fuel emissions of CO2

CO2 = \int (Bout(t) - Bin(t) + Fout(t) - Oin(t)) dt

All four terms are time varying. Isotope ratios only indicate that Bout/Fout are higher than before. They cannot explain why the CO2 in the atmosphere is rising which necessarily requires understanding the other terms as well.

Don't link to realclimate.org; its heavily partisan and apologetic for even bad science and outlandish claims.

In a common value auction, the auctioned item is of roughly equal value to all bidders, but the bidders don't know the item's market value when they bid. Each player independently estimates the value of the item before bidding. The winner of an auction is, of course, the bidder who submits the highest bid. Since the auctioned item is worth roughly the same to all bidders, they are distinguished only by their respective estimates. The winner, then, is the bidder making the highest estimate. If we assume that the average bid is accurate, then the highest bidder overestimates the item's value. Thus, the auction's winner is likely to overpay.

No. The real problem is that FCC has only made a very small, very expensive allocations to GSM use. The equipment can support many more channels but the frequencies are legally limited in the US. Thus why bandwidth is bad here and much better elsewhere. Ditto for cost concerns. Wireless carriers have paid a lot of more at auction to the US Government than similar allocations cost in other countries.

See for instance this recent article at the wsj

The FCC has approved a threefold increase in available spectrum in recent years, but projections for data traffic show a 30-fold increase in demand, Mr. Genachowski said. "That's a 10-to-one gap," he said. "It's a very serious challenge."

...

Wireless industry lobbyists have spent months trying to persuade lawmakers to pass legislation that would require the government to do an inventory of the U.S.'s airwaves and how they are being used. The U.S. government controls much of the available airwaves, which are set aside for military and other official uses. Rights to airwaves are auctioned off to companies to use exclusively.

Mr. Genachowski said the FCC would look at ways to promote secondary markets for airwaves, which would give people who hold licenses for airwave usage the right to lease those licenses to others. He said the agency would also try to clear obstacles for wireless companies trying to install new networks, including speeding up approvals for new cellphone tower construction, which often are met with community resistance.

"Captain" Bligh of the Bounty was a lieutenant. Young and still a bit green as a commander.

Bligh and _2/3rds_ of the crew were placed into a small dingy and set adrift. Having only a compass and sextant he went 6700km and nailed the nearest British outpost Timor. Only one man died on route.

Further wikipedia concisely notes:
"The Bounty's log shows that Bligh resorted to punishments relatively sparingly. He scolded when other captains would have whipped and whipped when other captains would have hanged. He was an educated man, deeply interested in science, convinced that good diet and sanitation were necessary for the welfare of his crew. He took a great interest in his crew's exercise, was very careful about the quality of their food, and insisted upon the Bounty being kept very clean."

Many "european" countries lack a minimum wage which is widely (but as you have shown us, not universally) recognized as a confused and unfortunately effective barrier to entry for inexperienced workers. A barrier that blocks them from securing the basic work experience to reach long term employment.

Unfortunately there is a large cadre of people in the US stuck in a 150 year intellectual time warp, spouting the same discredited ideas.

The rest of your list makes no sense as its connection to work wages is tenuous at best.

The data is a good deal more complicated than you or the article suggest. In particular the US has substantially better neonatal and premature birth care. Those babies are much more likely to die outright in the RoW and those deaths are excluded from the statistics. Conversely, those 'saved' babies in US have lower than average life expectancies and weigh-down the numbers.

This is an area where 'science' and 'facts' have been highly politicized--a war on science so to speak--to advance a political agenda. Witness your own pivot into a lack of 'health-care'.

If you have populations who forgo abortion despite adverse fetal genetic testing, you're also going to have populations with lower life expectancies too.

Christy and Spencer have stated repeatedly in the scientific literature that they their analysis of radiosonde data agrees CLOSELY WITH THOSE OF OTHER SCIENTISTS

This is a red herring. UAH and RSS agree very closely, so what? That is not the issue raised by any of the four comments I linked to. There is no reason to doubt the UAH/RSS temperature series.

Christy is one of the authors of NOAA's Climate Change Science Program report that clearly states that global warming is real and man-made. Yet, he is more than happy to take money from the ExxonMobil funded Heartland institute and say global warming doesn't exist

His comment submission to the EPA particularly discusses how the CCSP report was politicized--that its conclusions were not supported by the available science.

McIntyre cann't even use someone elses data and programs correctly. He tried to replicate Mann's hockey stick, but made so many mistakes that the National Research Council had to publish it's own analysis that demonstrated McIntyres errors and reaffirmed Mann's work. ten other independent groups have been able to duplicate Mann's work and show that Mann was too conservative in his findings.

Although the obscurity of the MBH methodology (as applied) lead to some inconsistencies, McIntyre did not fail to use "someone elses programs and data correctly." Rather Mann failed to document and describe his scientific procedure in a thorough and appropriate fashion.

The NRCs work was subsequently reviewed by congressional committee and an independent statistician which led to the 'Wegman report'. The latter analysis supersedes the NRC and validates McIntyre's work and discredits the line of MBH papers.

I've personally looked at Mann's method and McIntyre's criticisms. Coming from a machine-learning background, Mann's methodology is clearly prone to 'overfit' and data-mining. To wit, the simple explanation is that he used 100 years (points) of calibration against ~120 time-series. Now any arbitrary linear weighting of those time-series is likely to produce a flat, trendless signal. During the calibration period--which uses 20th century temperature data that is basically trendless until 1980 followed by an increase in temperature, he fitted the time-series in linear combination to reproduce this curve (minimize rms error). This is basically just a question of having adequate free-variables to adjust the data to fit, but outside of the calibration interval the weightings are essentially arbitrary.

Thus his result: several hundred years of trendless temperature followed a curve that looks like the 20th century. From this he concluded that the 20th century temperature change was unprecedented. This conclusion using this method is patently fatuous.

Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work. This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.

Hmm... is it possible for temperatures to decline in the last 11 years but rise in the past 30. Uh. Yes. The trend since 1998 is decidedly down. What does that mean? Well that's a more complex question, but your broad brush covers it up.

I suggest reading the following to get a taste of the counter-argument to the EPA's finding:

• John Christy
• Roy Spencer
• Steve McIntyre
• Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

These all address concerns about the lack of underlying science--not the political/economics issues.

I agree about the industry part, although I find it ironic since VHDL arose from DARPA funded work whereas Verilog is a proprietary innovation turned international standard. At school I learned VHDL though. This wasn't a problem when it came time to use Verilog at work.

My advice: cut against trend. If you're a North American school, use VHDL. If you're in Europe, use Verilog. It may be the only chance for your students to taste the other side.

The insanity of VHDL is attaching two things that you know are 'just wires'. In my experience you spend quite a lot of time writing type-conversion adapters.

Put another way: If everyone used 100% of the electrical capacity in their house, the plant would likely fall over. So what you do is, you charge for the amount used -- then people will at least make some effort to cut back. If they don't, and they still pay the bill, you invest that money in building infrastructure.

Except that the marginal price of bytes transferred is incredibly small, which means that any pricing scheme short of gouging will not deter usage.

The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation

That's a well known talking point, but unfortunately its wrong. The regions of accumulation are cooling, not warming. See this spatial distribution plot