Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It's official, you all live in a Dictatorship (Score 1) 180

It's not a treaty, so nothing in it has the force of law.

It *IS* a treaty. An international agreement is a treaty, by definition. That's what treaty means.

However, it is only a legal treaty in the U.S. if it gets ratified by Congress. And we'd better hope that's not the case.

Further yet, there's the issue of whether a treaty can override internal U.S. laws. My money is on NO.

Comment Re:Excellent! (Score 1) 92

I agree in a way. 16GB of internal storage is pretty lame, unless the 64GB micro SD is seen as "native" storage.

But to keep things in perspective: Android is Java, and adds a huge amount of cruft and overhead to the underlying Linux OS. I've been wondering for a long time why we weren't seeing plain native Linux tablets, without all that Google junk.

As long as I have LibreOffice, Firefox, and a few other apps for it I'm good to go. I could wish for a more plain-Linux experience than Ubuntu, but if it has all the requisite drivers, then Ubuntu it is.

Comment Re: How is this newsworthy? (Score 2) 292

Amen! The idea of "natural rights" is a stupid one. There are no such things, precisely as you say. That's why society is important

This completely sidesteps the point. Would you rather live in a society that defines such rights as "natural rights" untouchable by government, or one that would allow government give or take away "rights" as it pleases?

Socialism, by and large, is a bad word. Even in those countries which have made a modicum of "socialism" actually work, like the Scandinavian countries, are not as "socialist" as many Americans seem to think. Look up Sweden, Denmark, and Norway in the Economic Freedom Index. In many ways they're more capitalist than the present United States.

Further, those countries have relatively small populations (smaller than many U.S. states and even some American metropolitan areas), and they have different historical social norms than the United States.

Further yet, in the 1990s, Sweden saw that even its modest amount of "socialism" was too much, and began to reverse course, moving toward LESS of a "welfare state". In the 20-some years they had been experimenting with it, they went from world's 4th per capita GDP to 14th. Now that they have further limited their taxation and "entitlement" programs, they are way back up again.

Denmark has had similar difficulties, and has taken some of the same steps toward solution (i.e., a bit back toward capitalism).

20 years ago, socialist Russia and China were dying. They were on the verge of mass starvation again. The only thing that has saved them -- and brought them back onstage as world-class economies -- was the adoption of more capitalism.

So yeah... socialism is a bad word. It has caused more misery and killed more people than capitalism ever has. Only a few countries have ever made much of it work, and even some of those have backtracked on it. Get on Twitter and ask Garry Kasparov. He'd be happy to tell you all about it.

And p-l-e-a-s-e don't try to tell me that "Democratic Socialism" is different. Tell that to the Greeks.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 1) 507

What are you talking about?

Well, then, be specific. What specific data were you showing in that Wood for Trees graph? And why did you include UAH land only, when the others were all global? Are you claiming that was an accident? Or were you trying to make an impression?

My point was that you weren't showing the finished results of UAH, but some intermediate data before further processing. And I really don't think it takes a genius to figure that out from what I wrote.

You're link is to a beta version of UAH that has different adjustments.

It's the version they're using. It's "beta" only in the sense that they called out for constructive comments. There is a link to a discussion of it on the same page, if you're interested.

Which is right? The currently published one or the beta version?

Presumably the newer version. There is reason to think so.

Are you sure that satellite is the gold standard?

I never claimed that it was. But there are lots of very good reasons to believe they're better than current surface temperature datasets.

Are they really 'constant' and unchanging?

Why do you ask? I didn't say or even imply that they were. My comments were about your later statements:

And which of the two data sets should we use? The difference between the adjustments applied by the two teams are quite large. UAH shows MORE warming than land based measurements while RSS shows less... []

One of my points was that your graph was messed up, because you used UAH land-only, vs RSS and UAH global (including sea). Your graph was misleading, intentionally or otherwise. I questioned your honestly not because of the uncalled-for attempts at personal slams, but because based on my past experience, my guess was (is) intentionally.

It should look more like this.

The bit about "unadjusted" was intended to mean that these curves are of instrumental data, not model outputs. Before being run through much processing. So "RSS MSU lower trop. global mean" is relatively unaltered MSU data.

We get your point that some are adjusted more. That has little to do with whether particular adjustments are proper or improper.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 1) 507

Are you sure you're not a 911 truther?

What is a "9/11 Truther"? And what does it have to do with climate change?

Why was your reply to a comment about climate change an attempt at character assassination?

As for Dumb Sci, I've been telling him for years to stop distorting my words and misrepresenting me out-of-context. But I have to ask again: why do you ask? What does it have to do with the subject at hand? Do you have a problem just addressing the subject without insulting people who may disagree?

In fact it's rather remarkable how amazingly similar you two are in that regard. Anyway:

The UAH satellite record actually shows MORE warming than the land based measurements.

You already wrote that.

Either way, Tamino doesn't refute Christy's & Spencer validations of UAH emperature data sets.

Wrong. Tamino does make it quite clear, quite publicly that he disapproves of the adjustments made to UAH.

Shall we disregard UAH, land based measurements, tropospheric measurements, and only trust RSS?

What the hell are you talking about? I suggested no such thing. In fact I haven't any idea where that came from. It has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

He did in fact deride UAH and its adjustments recently.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 2, Informative) 507

This guy doesn't seem to have an honest bone in his body.

Unadjusted UAH might... but you already said adjustments are necessary. If so, why are you showing data before adjustments? It's meaningless for proving your point. But it's great for propaganda. Further -- and this is funny -- your had to include UAH "land only" when all the others are "global"... why? My guess is precisely to mislead, because that looks the highest.

But you're not fooling people as much as you think you are.

And why not use the adjustments calculated by the team whose job it is to do so? Especially when RATPAC and other similar models very clearly exaggerate the warming by not accounting for instrumental changes (see the link in my other reply)... so why not use the clearly superior set of adjustments (Christy, Spencer et al.) which does account for discontinuities caused by the instrumentation changes?

So let's just knock off the BS, and show them what UAH actually shows for current temperatures.

No hottest year. Not even close. And remember it's only as high as it was, because of El Nino... weather, not climate.

But as weather effects go, it's a big one. And when this big El Nino goes away, we're in for La Nina. Typically 2-3 years of cooler temperatures.

I suspect Layzej, like Tamino and pals, are trying to push the "OMG hottest year ever" message now, while they have a chance, and before it cools off.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 0) 507

I doubt you should spend any time with someone who rejects radiative physics.

But I'm not one of them, so what's your problem?

Nor did I say the Twin Towers were an inside job.

And the birth certificate on the Whitehouse website IS fake. Don't take my word for it... ask anyone who has a knowledge of computer graphics download it and examine it. They'll tell you the same.

BUT -- as I have stated many times here on Slashdot -- there could be a number of perfectly legitimate reasons for that. I do not claim he was not born in America. Which is what you seem to be implying. Imagine that.

And that's where all your bullshit comes from: distortions.

As I stated before, I know you can find references. And Tamino (just as I predicted) is one of "The Usual Suspects".

However, Tamino's work does NOT refute Christy, Norris et al. 2005, or 2008. Or Christy & Spencer 2012.

And Thorne et al. 2011 says the homogenization methods used by RATPAC and similar models (the kind Tamino likes to cite) are inadequate.

I already told you, it's pointless to go there. You can look those papers up just fine if you want to, but you won't prove anything.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 1, Troll) 507

I am so tired of this "but they don't measure temperature, they measure radiance" crap.

Of course they measure radiance. But NO instrument "directly" measures temperature. All of them measure some EFFECT that is the result of temperature. Even mercury or alcohol thermometers.

And they all use models, to varying extent. In the case of physical thermometers, that "model" is essentially built into its physical construction. In electronic thermometers, the "model" may be part of its physical construction, or based on a reference, or both. Or might be in firmware. Or it may be in software located somewhere else entirely. Even the surface temperature thermometer record has models to adjust for different factors, including changes of location.

The point is: what you say is pretty much true as far as it goes, but those are NOT strong arguments against the satellite record. Not only are they true of pretty much every kind of instrument, including thermometers, but:

* Radiosonde data has been shown to strongly correlate with UAH and RSS satellite data.

* Radiosonde (thermometer) data was actually used to help calibrate the satellites.

* Satellite instruments (MSU) also have the highest-quality internal references.

* Satellites have by far the best coverage of any instruments we have.

Now, I am quite sure you can find references from The Usual Suspects which disagree with some of these points, but I can dig up references too. And that would just make it pretty much a matter of he-said, she-said, and won't get us anywhere, so I won't likely bother to respond if you do. I've seen them all.

Not many years ago (just before the AGW hysteria began, in fact), the satellites were widely hailed as "the best instruments we have". I am aware that some people (again, The Usual Suspects) disagree. But anyone who ignores the satellite record is doing something wrong.

Slashdot Top Deals

The person who's taking you to lunch has no intention of paying.