My apologies, Anonymous Coward was hidden. Now I see it...
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
It would be simple minded. Of course I didn't say or imply that, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Every time I see someone call somebody else a "denialist" I can't help but think they are treading a very thin line towards Godwin's law.
Attack the argument, not the person.
No, he's correct. Evolution has not been observed happening in real time at a genetic level. We have observed the long term effects of it. I.e. we can compare the DNA of one batch of bacteria in the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment with another batch and see that they have changed, but we don't know which exact bacterium started the change and why or how that change occurred during cell replication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Or, as in your example, we can compare the DNA or RNA of a virus with a previous generation and we know it has changed. We didn't see it changing. We don't know why it has changed. I.e. we didn't see it evolve, but we observed the effects of the evolution (a changed organism).
Science is almost never settled and is always up for debate (don't be a bigot).
Climate change science has not been settled. Every year better and better models come out superseding the older models. This comes about by climate scientists debating the merits of their existing models.
"Does climate change happen naturally? Yes? Is the current experience of climate change natural? No."
In regards to the second question you posed the answer is yes and no. "Natural" (non-anthropogenic) climate change has not paused while anthropogenic causes increased in effect.
You from Aus?
It's great you mentioned the Serval Project. It is a pity they are restricted by spectrum licences to using wifi.
I wonder if the LTE Direct people had seen the Serval Project.
"they still fall behind more conventional forms of lighting in terms of brightness."
The most advanced consumer LEDs have a higher luminous efficacy than HID, fluorescent, and incandescent lights. They have for several years now.
The luminous flux of LEDs is good as well. Although the total power of LEDs tapers off after around 30W, manufacturers use large arrays of the more efficient low power LEDs and achieve incredibly high luminous flux. E.g. Cree sells a flood light that is 850W and outputs 75000 lumens.
For domestic use, LEDs have higher luminous flux than competing lighting techniques.
You've done me a favor, I didn't even know Antarctica had volcanic areas. I've now looked it up and there are subglacial volcanoes!!!
"This contributes to the ice loss already occurring due to warmer temperatures."
What will be interesting is the relative ratios of each affect (which I don't see yet quantified).
"In fact probably less than 10% is affected directly by the geothermal heat."
"In fact" and "probably" don't mix.
The paper doesn't support your assertion. If you look at Fig. 3 you'll see that almost the entire glacier has twice the average geothermal flow at 100mW/m^2 or greater (with hot spots up to 200mW/m^2).
Proof from either of you?
Whether someone is anti-science or not, pointing out corruption in the field of science is a good thing. Corruption wastes time, money, and can hurt people.
The same thing can be said of gross errors that drastically change results.
It is a reasonable example of science working. I say reasonable because it wasn't initially a lack of duplication of results that sparked concern, it was alleged plagiarism and image manipulation.
It's a pity all research results weren't required to be duplicated by an independent team as a prerequisite to being published. And then peer reviewed in light of the secondary results.
"In the biomedical research field, everybody fabricates results."
A nice anecdote. Do you have any data to back that up?