Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why not? When you have kids.. (Score 1) 319

by tbannist (#48168763) Attached to: Court Rules Parents May Be Liable For What Their Kids Post On Facebook

That's bullshit. Words do nothing. And I don't care if a story sounds *plausible* to the believer, he would still be the moron to chase down.

So, it's perfectly ok for me to promise to pay money to the first person to murder your "child-raping" ass? Only the person who actually murders you should face any kind of criminal charges?

It's not the pen, it's the man's conscious that decides what happens with the sword.

I don't think anyone is saying that the person who commits the crime should be absolved of the blame because someone else told him to do it. They saying the guy who order other people murdered should not be allowed to walk free while his flunkies go to jail for the crimes he ordered. It's like you too ignorant to have ever heard of the mafia and organized crime.

You're only trying to pass blame, you are saying "the devil made me do it" is a valid excuse, and fuck that.

Actually it's opposite of that, they're saying we should lock up both the "pawn" and "the devil".

Comment: Re:It's always been a myth (Score 1) 238

by tbannist (#48152093) Attached to: How Women Became Gamers Through D&D

If you really care about journalistic ethics, you will want to distance yourself from #gamergate because the prominent people supporting it have none. They've published lies, been caught, and then refused to retract them after they were proven to be lies. Frankly, it seems like there are some very unethical people deliberately pouring gasoline on this fire to see how many people they can burn.

Comment: Re:The problem with double standards. (Score 3, Informative) 292

by tbannist (#48047557) Attached to: 35,000 Walrus Come Ashore In Alaska

So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.

I suppose that depends on your definition of normal, for example it's about 2 million square kilometers below the average for 1980-2010, which hardly seems to qualify as normal. I can a reason see why you would choose an average of the lowest years on record for comparison, but it's not a very flattering reason.

Comment: Re:The problem with double standards. (Score 1) 292

by tbannist (#48047493) Attached to: 35,000 Walrus Come Ashore In Alaska

Really? Nothing to do with the fact we're coming out of an ice age

Yes, because we are not "coming out a [glacial period]", we are headed into one. With out anthropogenic caarbon emissions, we would actually be on the long slow decline (-0.2 C per 1000y) into another glacial period. So, by definition, it can not have anything to do with "a fact" which is not true.

and that we're still lower than the interglacial temperatures prior to the last ice age?

I don't know what source you're using for this claim, but you appear to be mixing up the terminology. An Ice Age is the period during which there are glaciers at the polls and it is made up of glacial and inter-glacial periods. If you're talking about the world being colder than before there were glaciars at the polls, then obviously, yes the world probably is colder than it was 2.58 million years ago, before the polar ice caps formed. Pretty much by definition any non-ice age period should be warmer than any ice-age period. If you mean temperatures "prior to the last [glacial period]" it also probably correct that the temperature is below the maximum from the previous interglacial which ice core records indicate was about +3 degrees above 1950. However, it should be noted that this interglacial has never been that warm. The normal trend is for a very warm beginning to an interglacial period and then a long term trend of declining temperatures, so, it doesn't make sense to say "still lower" unless you are counting on the anthropogenic forcing to exceed +3 degrees C.

We're seeing these things because of fossil fuels, not for any other reason?

To the best of your knowledge, yes. The combined effect of all of the natural forcings that we know about and can measure have had a combined negative impact on global temperatures over the last decade and a half, and the termperature has continued to rise, although at a slower pace than previously. There are a few other anthropogenic climate forcings that account for a small part of the warming (land use changes and albedo change effects, for example) but the biggest factor is the increase in greenhouse gases and the feedback effects that that increase triggers. It should be noted that not all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels. Concrete, for example, actually emits a fair amount of CO2 as well, but the grandparent is essentially correct.

Comment: Re:"Belief" is not part of the scientific method (Score 2) 207

by tbannist (#47979643) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

Funny, I always thought "experiment" was in there somewhere.

Apparently, you should be at your most scientific (and smug) when you don't do experiments.

Sigh. Experiments would be part of "observation", as in you conduct an experiment and observe the results.

If you weren't so busy being a cynical jackass, you might actually have time to learn things.

Comment: Re:Just in time for another record cold winter (Score 5, Informative) 200

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, however, ...

Obviously, you don't understand how science works:

Record hot summer = Evidence of global warming

As part of a trend of record hot summers, for sure. Individually? Not unless the record heat is so extraordinary that it falls outside of what would be possible without global warming.

Record cold winter = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.

A record cold winter would be evidence against global warming if it was part of trend, or it was so cold that it fell out of what should be possible with global warming. Having said that, globally this past winter had the 3rd warmest december, the 4th warmest January and the 21st warmest February, none of which exactly qualify as "record cold" on the global scale.

Extreme weather events = Evidence of global warming

Again it's the trends in extreme weather events more than the individual events that matter with certain exceptions where the events themselves fall out of what would be possible without global warming.

Lack of extreme weather events = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.

Again, it the trends, not individual weather on any specific year that matters

Ice melting in Antarctica = Evidence of global warming

Record ice in arctic = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.

I think you might have your north and south mixed up. We're near the record low for Arctic ice extent, and at record highs in Antarctic ice extent. Both of which are expected as part of global warming.


It actually is, whether or not you resort to derision and mockery.


Hundreds of Thousands Turn Out For People's Climate March In New York City 200

Posted by samzenpus
from the cooling-things-off dept.
mdsolar writes with an update on the People's Climate March. More than 400,000 people turned out for the People's Climate March in New York City on Sunday, just days before many of the world's leaders are expected to debate environmental action at the United Nations climate summit. Early reports from event organizers are hailing the turnout as the largest climate march in history, far bigger than the Forward on Climate rally held in Washington, D.C., last year. High-profile environmentalists including Bill McKibben, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jane Goodall and Vandana Shiva marched alongside policymakers such as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former Vice President Al Gore were also there, and more than 550 buses carried in people from around the country.

Comment: Re: Still pretty affordable (Score 1) 393

by tbannist (#47935879) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

Once all the hospitals and other facilities are government, you have no place to turn except for the government.

Interesting note: There are countries that provide universal health care where the government owns all the hospitals and clinics and there are countries where it doesn't. Universal health care doesn't require that the government own the health care infrastructure. The government only needs to take over the primary health care insurance market.

Another interesting note: Many of the countries with universal health care still have for-profit supplemental health care coverage for the things that are not covered by the universal system.

Comment: Re:FYI (Score 1) 635

by tbannist (#47922683) Attached to: Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

But 3 consecutive years of expansion would be....

Good news?

It's not happening, though. This year is really, really close to last year so it's more like a 2 year rebound from a new record low. If we're really lucky, 2012's minimum extent record will stand for a decade or longer. That would be good news for us, but I don't expect it to.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by tbannist (#47870549) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

When the climate change topic comes up, my brain automatically translates that the punitive corrective measures bandied about over the years...Carbon Tax, Environmental Regulation, and all the other proposed measures that wind up trading modest pollution levels for wideband economic austerity.

Why would you think that Carbon taxes or environmental regulation would actually trigger "wideband economic austerity"? We've been through similar measures at least twice before (CFCs and Acid Rain) and as non-intuitive as it may seem now, the interventions actually turned out to have a small positive effect on the economy. It turns out that when pollution is free, there is a certain inertia where companies often don't take steps that would actually be beneficial to their bottom line because the benefit is perceived to be small and potentially risky.

Furthermore, there are several countries (and areas withing individual countries) already have carbon taxes and regulation and they have not been driven out of business by their less-regulated competition. Norway, for example, has had a carbon tax for over 20 years.

Comment: Re:Scientific Consensus (Score 1) 770

by tbannist (#47852939) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

Science is about provability, consensus is about getting majority or even a plurality of opinions.

I'm afraid not. Mathematics is about provabiity. Science is about predictability (or understanding). That's why science must be repeatable.

These two things are mutually exclusive.

Again, I'm afraid not. You inevitably need a consensus that something has been "proven". You need independent verification that your results are correct and if no one can reproduce your results, they won't be accepted and won't be considered "proven".

Piltdown Man was once "consensus". We know how that turned out.

As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.

- Piltdown Man page on Wikipedia

I'm not too familiar with the case, but I'm doubtful that there was ever a consensus on his piltdown man, even among the people that didn't want to believe that Dawson was a con man, there was much disagreement over how the fake find should be interpreted.

Comment: Re:Straight to the pointless debate (Score 1) 136

by tbannist (#47824991) Attached to: Out of the Warehouse: Climate Researchers Rescue Long-Lost Satellite Images

If some dope seriously compromised the thermometer's accuracy, say buy putting it near a radiative surface, then accuracy is lost and you have to throw the data out. You can't average out the error and just subtract it from all the numbers. The data is useless - you cannot repair inaccurate data.

Where you're talking about measurements, there's a difference between accuracy and bias. An accurate instrument with a known bias can still be useful.

Comment: Re:Straight to the pointless debate (Score 1) 136

by tbannist (#47824933) Attached to: Out of the Warehouse: Climate Researchers Rescue Long-Lost Satellite Images

The ground station temperature data has been quite thoroughly manipulated, always "adjusted" in the direction of confirming the theories of the researcher making the adjustment, Pardon my skepticism about that data.

Strangely enough BEST (partially funded by the Koch brothers) actually found that was not true. They actually found some the adjustments were over-correcting for warm bias and actually reducing the actual warming trend by a small amount. Unsurprisingly, adjustments are made to correct both unusual up and unusual down spikes in the temperature records which are often caused by changes in staffing, location, and methodology at temperature stations.

The satellite data, however, has no such shadow over it. It's good, solid data - the sort of thing one expects in science.

I don't think you actually know what you're talking about.

... then I'll be annoyed that the data source I trust has been mixed with adjusted data.

Too late, the satellite data has to be adjusted to be usable in the first place and UAH, for example, has been through 10 rounds of adjustments to correct various errors.

Never buy from a rich salesman. -- Goldenstern