Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A waste of time, really? (Score 1) 140

Long story short:

The reason data is held for a period is to give the scientists who were given grants to fund their research time to do their research. Otherwise, it's harder to get funding if someone else can take the data and publish it. The withholding period is usually fairly short (~6 months).

Comment: Re:Where is why? (Score 1) 564

There have only been degreed global climate scientists for 10-15 years.

Care to cite a reference for this? Because, again, the knowledge upon which climate study is build has been accumulated for centuries. It's not like they only just started studying it in the past 10-15 years as you suggest. It's been studied for far, far longer than you seem willing to accept. [reference]

Being an "authority" in a field where even a basic understanding of the systems involved is decades or centuries away is not saying much. Particularly when actions taken based on the word of these "authorities" could cause humans to become extinct, and at the very least would cause large groups of people to endure starvation, death, economic collapse, and much lower standards of living.

Which parts of controlling our carbon emissions, preventing or slowing our alterations to the environment that are radically changing even local ecosystems will "cuase humans to become extinct"? Please, be specific.

That, and most of the historical climate data that climate scientists have to work with is from the same "massaged" pool of data from the CRU & Mann. Mann admitted he destroyed the original data. If that doesn't send up huge warning flares and red flags, then you're not being intellectually honest and are arguing purely from an ideological/political advocacy viewpoint.

Cite a source that shows the data collected by Phil Jones (which is the name you provided in your correction) is "most of the historical climate data have to work with", please. Because I don't believe that to be true. One scientist's work during one period of time in the late 90s is not "most" of any data for such a discipline. [reference]

Comment: Re:Where is why? (Score 1) 564

by McPierce (#40239277) Attached to: Taking Issue With Claims That American Science Education is 'Dismal'

To quote you: "I stopped reading right there." You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.

If not a troll, you definite display troll-like tendencies.

Facts have to come from reputable sources. Too many in Academia have already proven that they will lie and smear their opponents name in the mud just to prove a point.

No argument here. There are lots of people who who will lie for various causes for various reasons. However, that still doesn't invalidate a whole discipline just because a small number were dishonest.

Comment: Re:Where is why? (Score 2) 564

by McPierce (#40231757) Attached to: Taking Issue With Claims That American Science Education is 'Dismal'

Disagreeing with something does not equate with "speak[ing] the truth".

Neither does disagreeing with something make it a "Troll" post.

You're right, it doesn't.

You aren't an authority on the subject, so your lack of acceptance does not mean the body of knowledge is wrong.

There are no "authorities" on global climate science. That would be the equivalent of calling the first primitives to discover the wheel "authorities" on modern global transportation networks.

And here you're quite wrong. Your comparison is a incorrect: those climatologists who study the trends and data regarding the changes in global temperature trends are in fact authorities since that is what they have studied and what they do. That you don't like or agree with them doesn't remove their authority on the discipline.

But your statement is very troll-like in that, if you understand what makes one an authority but then say those climatologists aren't authorities, you're trolling this thread.

You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.

There IS NO "verified, objective scientific data". That's the whole point. If there was, there wouldn't be any debate. It's that precise lack (and "massaging" of the data that existed) that's the issue.

Again, you're quite wrong. You seem to greatly misunderstand how science works then if you think conclusive data precludes any debate. Quite the contrary, science and the collected body of data requires constant debate in order to refine our knowledge and theories. It's part of how we skeptically interrogate the universe to learn about it (to paraphrase Sagan).

If you don't understand how science works, then I hope this helps you take a step in the right direction. If you do, however, know this, then you're again exhibiting troll-like tendencies. Ones you apparent claim to be proud and unashamed to show.

Comment: Re:Where is why? (Score 1) 564

by McPierce (#40231017) Attached to: Taking Issue With Claims That American Science Education is 'Dismal'

And, once again, I'm modded "Troll" for being an AGW heretic and daring to speak the truth.

Disagreeing with something does not equate with "speak[ing] the truth". You aren't an authority on the subject, so your lack of acceptance does not mean the body of knowledge is wrong.

I suppose when you have no facts or arguments behind your views...

To quote you: "I stopped reading right there." You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.

If not a troll, you definite display troll-like tendencies.

Comment: Re:Who uses Mutt? (Score 1) 93

by McPierce (#39604011) Attached to: Mutt Fork Adds Features From Notmuch

I do. Email doesn't need a graphical application and the excessive resource usage of a GUI.

If I need to view any attachments, I can use a mailcap definition for each type that I want to access (and can update that on the fly if something surprises me).

And I'm contributing to the mutt-kz project as time permits to add the features that would make this sort of mail client all the more useful.

Comment: Re:Execution (Score 1) 432

by McPierce (#38913967) Attached to: How Far Should GPL Enforcement Go?

No, the GPL does not force others to share.

It most certainly does. If you modify code written with the GPL and then release it you have to provide the source code. That's the POINT of the GPL. If you don't release the product for others then, and only then, are you not required to release the source code.

"The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms. Under this philosophy, the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the free software definition and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved, even when the work is changed or added to. This is in distinction to permissive free software licenses, of which the BSD licenses are the standard examples. [from wikipedia]

Google

+ - Google disabled my AdSense account, claiming "inva->

Submitted by
McPierce
McPierce writes "I've been the host of a podcast for nearly three years now. Early on I moved the show from its old feed to a Blogger site and started using archive.org to host the media files. A friend of mine who does a web comic turned me on to an online service that helps to do ad campaigns and, long story short, I started advertising through that site. The advertising costs a LITTLE money (literally pennies), so I figured enabling AdSense on our blog site could help to generate even a little fundage that I could use to pay for the ad campaign.

So last week I enabled google's AdSense on the site. I had it running previously in the feeds and never paid much attention to it. And in the 2 1/2 years of the blog's existence it had accumulated a whopping $3 in ads. But after three days of the ads running on the site I got an email from Google saying they were closing my AdSense account for "generating invalid activity". As far as I can tell, the ad campaign site regularly pings any URL that hosts ads to ensure it's up and running so that advertisers are getting what they paid for.

Has anybody else had a problem like this? I have no idea what Google means by "invalid activity". I daily check my site for comments, and have clicked a couple of the AdSense links since they ARE related to my and my listener's interests, but can't imagine a single click is "invalid activity"."

Link to Original Source

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -- William James

Working...