Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 190

While we shouldn't dismiss problems ranging from rape to unprofessional behavior as just being prude.
Academia is very hierarchical in structure, so there is a pecking order in power there. So having men who are in a higher power position hitting on women in lower power positions puts them in a disadvantage. While they can go forward, it will still mark them as being "Miss. Woman's Lib" and isolate them from working up the power command of academia.

     

Comment Re:Wait just a minute! (Score 1) 472

It's cute when you can't win the argument and start calling names.

          BTW, I have probably looked at more simulation data than all climate scientists put together and had plenty of opportunity to check simulation results against real life. If the predictions fall out 6-sigma low - which the best-case (lest warming) model did a few years ago - the simulation is wrong, period, back to the drawing board.

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 1) 472

1) Government funds your study and provides your grant
2) Government wants a particular result from your study
3) Government does not renew your grant when the study does not prove what they set out to prove

And...

1) Private industry funds your study and provides your grant
2) Private industry wants a particular result from your study
3) Private industry does not renew your grant when the study does not prove what they set out to prove
4) Private industry tries to censor any study that has results that embarrass private industry

Comment Re:Wasn't the C64 just a BASIC interpreter anyways (Score 1) 87

I learned to program primarily on Radio Shack machines (MC-10 and Color Computer, boy that brings back memories). I found the GWBASIC/QBasic interpreters fairly close to the old Tandy/RS variants of Microsoft BASIC. The Commodore interpreter, which was also an MS BASIC variant, still seemed to have some oddities.

The problem with gaming was of course that every microcomputer had its own graphics engine, so it made porting incredibly complex in many cases. Since we're talking about computers that had, at most, 30-odd kb in free RAM, there wasn't much room for graphics abstraction. Commodore's graphics, especially on the C64, with its sprite capabilities, made it very different than the rest of the microcomputers of the time.

But text-based stuff was usually pretty easy, and I remember the adventure writing book, which was pretty cool, and I wrote a few adventure games. It actually taught me a lot about string processing, indexes and counters and the like, so these books did teach some pretty important fundamentals in a way that gave you quick results.

Comment Well (Score 1) 130

Technically they shouldn't read ANYONE'S secrets. Having a secret is not a crime. You're supposed to catch criminals who break the law, not mine people's data and extrapolate to see if they have done anything wrong. Because after all, everyone (including FBI agents) is guilty of something.

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 1) 472

You know, you can't just handwave evidence away with "It's a complex system."

If increased CO2 levels are increasing the absorption of solar energy, which you don't seem to deny, then pray tell where the fuck is that energy going, if not into the lower atmosphere and the oceans? Come on, Mr. Smarty Guy, fucking explain how "complex systems" make energy magically fucking disappear. Go on, get to it. Show how "complex systems" somehow allow violations of thermodynamics.

Comment Re:Predictions, so far, have been accurate (Score 1) 472

Look up "polar amplification" or "stratospheric cooling", these are phenomena that were seen in models before they were observed in nature. There are about a dozen such phenomena that have been discovered via climate models.

BTW: Climate models are based on finite element analysis, AKA numerical integration. Statistics doesn't come into it until you compare the results to historical data (hindcasting). Hindcasting is the standard method to test any FEA model, doesn't matter if you are modeling the casting of an engine block or the earth's climate.

Last I check you need at least eight decimal places and statistically significant sample not to be laughed out of most fields.

In cosmology and astrophysics getting a result that is within a few orders of magnitude is considered "accurate". In archeology a radioactive dating result with 10% is considered a "good result". Science isn't all about measuring the width of a proton, other than particle physics, there are actually very few scientific fields that "demand" eight decimal places of accuracy.

The problem I have with critiques of climate models like yours is they are non-sequiturs and born from ignorance, they don't make any sense because they are sourced from MSM articles that (for political reasons) aim to convince you that modeling physical phenomena is some kind of scam that scientists are using to make money. If you want to critique the models then write a paper explaining why you need "eight nines" to convincingly demonstrate to others that the north pole is melting. There are lists of rebuttals to these fake critiques on the web, skepticalscience is one of the better ones, I'm sure you will find a few of your favorite talking points torn to shreds on that page..

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...