Forgot your password?

Comment: A question for the 'climate change' fraudsters.. (Score -1, Troll) 84

What ever happened to the previous environmental scares used to try and drum up funding for your pseudo-science?

- We were told acid rain would destroy European forests. Hmm doesn't seem to have happened.

- We were told CFCs were destroying the ozone layer and causing wild animals to go blind. We banned CFCs and it has had no effect on the hole in the ozone layer and the claims of blindness have been proven to be lies.

- We were told that the Sahara desert was growing south: what actually happened was the area got greener!

Environmental scare stories, of which the impact of Climate Change is just the latest incarnation, has a long and dishonourable history of dishonesty.

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 794

by Alsee (#48026195) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

You are suggesting that every single one of a multitude of completely independent temperature records are all wrong. You are trying to dismiss them on the irrational basis that they all point in the same direction by slightly different amounts.

Furthermore you are assuming that every single one of a multitude of completely independent temperature records are all wrong in the same direction, imposing your pre-determined bias upon them.

You are baselessly filtering out any satellite data that doesn't fit the story you want to hear.

You are baselessly filtering out ocean temperatures, which account for 90% of climate heating, because it doesn't fit the story you want to hear.

You are engaging in wild conspiracy-theoryism claiming (or implying) that some hundredthousand scientists are ALL too stupid to account for novice-level obvious measurement difficulties, or that they are ALL conspiring to deliberately lie.

And most of all you're denying THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.
CO2 lets sunlight in and blocks the escape of thermal radiation. There is no possible dispute there. End of argument. The science is utterly and unarguably settled. All that's left at that point is determining the size of the effect.

It's astounding that it somehow doesn't make it into your conscious awareness that you are baselessly ignoring anything and everything that doesn't fit the story you want to hear.


Comment: Re:Fine. Legislate for externalities. (Score 1) 450

by thogard (#48025871) Attached to: Energy Utilities Trying To Stifle Growth of Solar Power

You may not have a choice. My last power bill had a connection charge that was higher than the energy consumption charge an I pay $.22 a kwh. That will be the trend in the future. In places where the grid is still locally owned, I see it being added to property taxes as the cost of batteries come down where people can go off grid.

We just put in 6 250W panels. They cost less then $190 each but installing the frame and the wiring cost more. The mPPT module happens to plug into our existing telco grade -48V DC power supply and it was only $800 but plugged into a nice $5k system. The batteries that will run one of our racks of gear for 8 hours cost $250 each for 8 of them. The silicon bits aren't a major part of the cost of going off grid now.

Comment: Re:~/.cshrc (Score 1) 208

by rs79 (#48015973) Attached to: Apple Yet To Push Patch For "Shellshock" Bug

Has anyone confirmed sh and csh (et al) don't have this problem? In all versions?

Am I crazy in thinking that a CGI program, say, written in C, that gets environment variables from Apache should not have any local environment variables tossed to any program it wants to run. Those are in appropriate and are from a CLI context and do not apply here. They should be nulled as soon as the program realizes its running in a web context and not from a CLI.

Actually even better would be to replace system() with a function that blew up that workstation to weed out the lazy programmers.

Comment: Re:Are we really that confused? (Score 1) 107

by rs79 (#48015913) Attached to: How Did the 'Berlin Patient' Rid Himself of HIV?


Again, when the virus stips your cells to make more of its own offspring - this is normal viral activity - it does something other viruses don't do, it also strips out selenium.

So they tried supplementing with just selenium and that helped but did not reverse the disease.

So they looked at what other essential (the body can't make them) molecules it took from the body and ignored non-essential (the body can make more of those molecules and doesn't have to ingest them) molecules the virus stripped from the host cells.

Low and behold, Tryptophan, Cysteine and Glutamine.

If you look up what has glutamine an in what amounts, nothing come close to beef[1] and it also has a fair amount of Tryptophan.

Cysteine is in cheese, the more aged the better. Parrnasian probabky has more than more other common ones I'd guess.

Because acidic rains for millions of years leached minerals form the Amazonian clay soils those minerals all ended up someplace an that's where brazil nut trees grow. They have so much selenium, that if you eat a handful a day you'll have selenosis in a week - a, um, disruption in the alimentary canal shall we say.

From both ends. But they're utterly essential for heart, brain and immune system.

In fact if you look you'll notice Senegal, like Brazil, has natural deposits of selenium in the soil everywhere and it was this that accounted for the reduced rate of incidence of HIV in Senegal - the HIV rate there is as low as it is in the US despite the fact the Senegalese have the same sub saharan cultural practices (and by that I mean fucking a lot) as the rest of the Sub Saharan Africa that has a 5-10X higher rate of HIV infection . This stands out, as does Finland where they put a lot of selenium in the soil to try to slow down heart diseases - the aids rate is lower than normal there too.

So "eating a lot of protein" per se won't do it. You'd have to use beef, cheese and a brazil nut or two.

Note also this works on all selenoviruses - which includes all the Coxsackie viruses which includes Hep C and others.

Most commercial medical training is strictly for acute care and they're the best in the world. But for chronic conditions they're less than useless an haven't fond anything useful since penicillin.

I hate t say it but there is literally no money in finding cures, there's only money for developing pills that are patentable that come close to what some other pill does. Some do better, some do worse. But if they're patented, they're funded.

They has the same problem with vitamin C, too. Jacques Cartier got stuck in Canada in Montreal in the Winter of 1580 (and you KNOW what a bitch that can be) and when his crew was near death the were saved from scurvy with some pine bark tea. When they told the medical profession back home they's fond a cure for scurvy they were told "we have nothing to learn from savages" and took another 300 years to discover vitamin C, an essential nutrient to every living plant and animal and until then scurvy was known to be caused by Foul humors and more people died needlessly.

So here's what happens when you try to tell people you have a treatment: the guy that discovered this raises money tests this where it's most needed, Uganda, at the Mengo clinic. It goes well and the guy then goes to the next village over and talks to the clinic there and says hey we have this treatment and we can cure your patients now.

The doctor there is horrified. "We can't cure these people! We get paid by pharmaceutical companies to test antiretrovirals on AIDS patients and if they get better they can't test and the whole clinic shuts down and it's alll the village has and I'm out of a job as there's no money for a doctor here." This is what actually happened.

So whaddya do? You write a book and move on. Not the first time this happened, there's at least a half dozen similar stories suppressed medicine in the form of biochemical understanding, but without commercial backing that makes treatments actually available.

Look at Pellagra for example, it killed 20,000 Americans a year for a decade or so until an obscure 1850's German biochemistry paper was unearthed that pointed out this was simply a Niacin deficiency. White flour became "enriched white flour" and to this day still is, and people stopped sying of pellagra (they shoot each other in stead, sub-clinical pellagra is almost certainly responsible for the current killing spree*

Noam Chomsky points out there's a hundred year gap between the way business works and the way education works. There's also a seriously long biochemical lead the medical profession will take decades to catch up to. Doctors are basically surgeons who has a poor rate of reversal in chronic disease cases being able to do little more than keep them calm whole they die. Which is utterly barbaric in a world where many of these conditions now are reversible.

Molecular medicine is the future as we correct and not mark problems. But the commercial medical profession is taking to this as well as the foul humor medical establishment did when Germ Theory came along in the mid nineteenth century.


Comment: Re:So offer a cost effective replacement (Score 1) 185

by rs79 (#48015679) Attached to: Security Collapse In the HTTPS Market

If this is a serious request for a protocol without flaws - didn't Bernstein fail to get any takers to find a flaw in djbdns?

I realize that's not a flawless protocol per se, but rather is a flawless implementation of an inherently flawed protocol. If you know of a better example I'd like to hear it.

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 794

by Alsee (#48010995) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything
Is that the statement you were referring to?

Correct. They adopted that statement (or a substantially equivalent statement) back in 2007.

Prior to that, they had a denialism statement. As I said, American Petroleum Geologists were the last scientific body of national or international standing to offer any hint of support to climate denialism.

There are many scientific bodies in unrelated fields that have never commented on the subject. There's the American Petroleum Geologists and perhaps some others with statements that carefully dodge having a position, but there's not one scientific body of national or international standing opposed to the effectively unanimous agreement by climate scientists that Global Warming is real and that it is directly a result of CO2 and other man-made causes.


Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 794

by Alsee (#48010921) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Let me help you with that.
Here is the graph you're looking for, showing continuous cooling trends from 1965 to 2013.5

The bottomline is there has been no warming statistically different from natural variation for at least 18 years

The bottom line is that you have given absolutely no rational reason for ignoring vast bodies of data proving your assertion is false.

You eagerly embrace the RSS graph for the sole reason that, on this arbitrarily selected time interval, it happens to give a linear trend line with a small enough warming to dismiss as negligible.

I asked if you had an rational reason from selecting the RSS data set, and you had none. I asked what you would do if I selected a different time interval, one where RSS showed warming and UAH didn't. You did not deny that you would have irrationally reject the RSS dataset and irrationally latched onto the UAH set.

You are flatly ignoring a MULTITUDE of global surface data sets showing the earth has in fact warmed over the last 18 years.

You have flatly ignored the ocean data set, a data set which you have not contested carries 45 times more weight than any atmospheric data. A data set which reflects 90% of the climate warming as opposed to the 2% warming that happens in the atmosphere. A data set which shows a perfectly steady warming rate for many decades. A data set which shows there has been absolutely zero slowdown in warming over the last 18 years.

You ignored virtually the entirety of data. You latched onto one cherrypicked fragment that most nearly fit what you wanted to find, tailored to this utterly arbitrary 18 year example. You have given no rational reason for latching onto this cherrypicked datapoint.

Can you really not see that this is a textbook case of Confirmation bias?

Can you really not see that what you have just done is exactly what I did in the 1965-2013.5 graph I linked above?


Comment: Are we really that confused? (Score -1) 107

by rs79 (#48004739) Attached to: How Did the 'Berlin Patient' Rid Himself of HIV?

Check pre and post levels of selenium, glutamine, tryptophan and cysteine. You'll find your answer,

People who are serious can find Harold Foster's write up of the biochemistry; also this train of thought was first mentioned in in 1991 leading to hypotheses of a reversal mechanism in 2007 that seems to work. In a nutshell the virus strips the body of those four molecules because of it's unique (to selenovirii) selenoprotein coat. The catch is these fouls are required for the production of an enzyme that makes the molecule that the immune system uses to kill the virus. That's how it broke the human immune system.

But, these are not uncommon molecules and a cheeseburger and two brazil nuts (they have bear toxic levels of selenium, more than anything else) every day will remediate it according to the BBC interview with the scientist who discovered it although one can obviously be more scientific about it. Point is, some people got HIV and never got AIDS. Why? Blood levels of these three amino acids and one mineral, if sufficiently high, will prevent HIV from progressing into AIDS

Theor wild assed guess sound like snakes and rattles.

There's clinical reports too. Seems to work. It's not really patentable so it may take a while to get into commercial medicine.

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 794

by Alsee (#47987635) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

I prefer Satellite Data

UAH NSSTC lower tropical global mean is also Satellite data.
Can you give me any reason..... can you give yourself any reason... why you ignored one set of satellite data and embraced another set of satellite data? Note that this is a past-tense question. If you research the UAH NSSTC satellite data and the RSS MSU satellite data, you'll find that they are substantially comparable satellites, and that they face substantially equal equal difficulties measuring temperature, and substantially equal corrections trying to fix serious problems of long term skew in the data. But for my question here, doing a new look up on the satellites is irrelevant. I'm asking, at the time you picked that ONE dataset out of a long list of data sets, did you have any reason from picking that one, other than the fact that it most nearly fit your prior position?

Satellite Data, it has been "corrected" as much

I assume that was supposed to read "hasn't been corrected as much". Actually they are heavily corrected. Amongst other difficulties, the satellites are in decaying orbits which steadily skews their readings more and more each year. They also have a lot of difficulty separating the signal of lower troposphere warming from the cooling in the stratosphere (itself a central evidence of man-made global warming).

The satellite data is important, but like all methods of global measurements, there are challenges. That is why scientists don't cherry pick one data set, they take a comprehensive look at all data from MULTIPLE satellites and multiple means of ground measurements and from sea measurements and everything else they can get their hands on.

Why did you ignore one satellite over another. Why did you ignore all ground data. Why did you ignore the sea data I linked, especially after I pointed out that atmospheric temperatures only accounted for 2% of global heat being captured and sea temperatures accounted for 90% of the heat being captured.

Is it possible that you dismissed multiple lines of strong evidence because it doesn't fit your prior conclusions on the subject? Is it possible that you eagerly embraced the isolated RSS MSU satellite data set because that graph generated a negligible amount of warming on that exact 18 year time interval?

Question: If I select a different time interval than the last 18 years, and I show you that the RSS MSU satellite (the one you picked) graph shows warming or greater warming compared to the other (UAH NSSTC) satellite, would you ever arbitrarily abandon the RSS satellite data and arbitrarily embrace the UAH satellite, merely because it better fits the prior argument you wanted to make? Is that a reasonable, objective, unbiased evaluation of all available evidence?


Nobody said computers were going to be polite.