I've been involved in more than my share of debates over global warming, and one thing that many of those who refuse to believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) often resort to is talking about how unfair the Kyoto Protocol is. First of all, that has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is real. Secondly, life's not fair. Thirdly, they're right that it's a bad thing.

Up until recently I've been pretty agnostic on Kyoto, mainly just pointing out that it's not relevant to the question of whether AGW is real. However, I was recently listening to a BBC podcast where the person being interviewed was talking about some company moving its factory to China where the limits wouldn't matter. Regardless of how you feel about globalization, this reveals a fundamental flaw in any greenhouse gas limiting treaty that doesn't involve all parties with this liability in mind - international corporations can always move their factories to countries that allow them to dump more CO2 (and/or methane, etc.) into the atmosphere.

Anyways, I just thought I'd throw this out there as I haven't heard anyone mention it yet.

I recently ran into a situation where several people have accused me of trying to tie the Holocaust into Global Warming by my use of the word "denier". My intention behind that word was, and has always been, to distinguish those who actively deny global warming from those who are merely skeptical (a smaller and smaller crowd all the time). However, I've recently seen more of this kind of argument. I have reason to believe that these people (or at least some of them) sincerely believe that there is an attempt to make such a bizarre connection.

So, my question is: what is a better phrase that still captures the essence that these people are not merely skeptics but head-in-the-sand individuals (at best) who are deliberately or ignorantly misrepresenting the existing science?

Terms I've considered:

• Global warming manipulator: No good. Sounds like they have giant weather-controlling machines.
• Global warming liars: Don't like it. Lacks specificity.
• Global warming shills: Still no good. Most of these people are tools (i.e., are being manipulated themselves), not shills.

Finally - for the few of you who actually are skeptical (I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that most of you understand and have few doubts about the climate science involved), I encourage you to read Scientific American's article devoted to answering real questions from real skeptics. As for the predictions of past IPCC reports (since the current (4th) IPCC has been an impetus for many of these discussions), I recommend this National Geographic article.

I've picked up a second "freak". What I find amusing is that I'm fairly certain that the first person made me their foe because my position was too conservative for him/her (I'm anti-drug use), and the second persion made me their for because my position was too liberal for him/her (I'm pro-environment). No biggie, I just found it interesting.

Also, my statements on global warming seem to have attracted one or more foul-mouthed ACs. Typically, I try to avoid responding to ACs because (a) they rarely have anything of value to say, and (b) I have no idea if the person I'm responding to is the same one from whom I get a response, etc. I think I've managed to stand by that philosophy today, but I was tempted once or twice to defend my "honor". In the end, I decided they're just not worth it.

For those who want to see pictures from my current Chaco trip, they're now up. When I have some time, I might annotate them. For those interested in seeing the bobcat, there are five pictures of him about half way down. The pictures start from a nice safe distance and then go around back where I can get to a nicer, less safe distance. The final picture of the bobcat was actually taken by someone else who was already standing about 4 feet from the bobcat. No point in two of us getting our faces scratched. As for pictures of me, 4 of the last 5 pictures have me in them. I'm the one in the black jacket.

Pictures from my 2006 Chaco Trip have captions for those who want even more Chaco.

I've just returned from about a week-long trip to Chaco Canyon, NM. I was setting up a database for a group of archaeologists who were documenting various prehistoric settlements out that way. It's a really cool place. It's at an elevation of about 7,000 feet, there was snow on the ground when I got there, and more snow fell while I was there. Fairly unusual for a fairly dry place.

Other than the really interesting ruins that the archaeologists were documenting, there were some other really neat things, too. I managed to get several pictures of a young bobcat (about 30 lbs) that was sunning itself on top of a wall at the visitor's center. I'll post these later. Additionally, I got a good picture of the Crab nebula supernova petrograph.

The trip back was a little too long for my tastes. First, I had to leave the site at 4 AM to get to Albequerque by 7 AM so that I could return the rental car and still have ample time to catch my 9 AM flight. Turns out that there was no real hurry as my 9 AM flight was initially delayed and then cancelled due to a faulty inertial navigation sensor (INS). They then rescheduled me (everyone had to be rescheduled individually - that's a really long line) for a later flight through Cincinnati. I begged them not to send me through Cincinnati as the last two times I went "through" Cincinnati, I ended up staying in Cincinnati. (That's why I always schedule through Atlanta now - I have relatives there, so if I have to spend the night, at least I can visit them!) Nevertheless, they would not relent. So, I boarded my flight to Cincinnati, only to find out that one of the engines was faulty. They kept us on the plane while they tried to fix it, but they ultimately moves us back to the plane with the faulty INS now that a replacement had been shipped in - from Atlanta. This plane finally took off, but late enough that I missed my connecting flight to Charlottesville, so for the third time in a row, I spent the night in Cincinnati. At least they paid for the hotel room (and vouchers for lunch, dinner, and breakfast). Finally, this morning, I flew the route that they had rescheduled for me again - from Cincinnati to Atlanta to Charlottesville.

I'm thinking about changing my signature to include a link to my Mom's Professional Organizer page in order to help get her higher on Google searches and what-not.

I think my leading candidate is:
Need a professional organizer in Metro Atlanta?

That way the words "professional organizer" and "Metro Atlanta" get associated with my Mom.

Thoughts?

(Btw, I'm also my Mom's web-monkey, so if you'd like to make comments about the page itself, feel free to do so.)

I am deeply, deeply troubled by this. I really didn't think he'd win the run-off. Of course, I was also quite sure that we were going to find WMD in Iraq. After all, we knew right where to find them, right? I guess I just need to increase my dosage.

I kept having to look up at the URL to verify it, but this article does not come from the Onion. Evidently, the conservative Dennis Prager (from Townhall.com) finds it offensive that the newly elected Muslim congressman Keith Ellison has chosen to be sworn in using the Quran instead of the Bible.

Again, I'd like to point out, this is not the Onion. Just in case you have a healthy case of skepticism, you can read the original article for yourself.

For some of us who have lamented the lack of an auditable paper trail, the victory of Webb over Allen in Virginia is a bittersweet moment. I know the machine I voted on in Charlottesville had no paper trail, and I think that this is true for most, if not all, machines in Virginia. Therefore, a recount of anything but the absentee ballots is virtually impossible.

So, I'm happy that Webb won. I'm happy that there probably won't be a recount. I'm not happy that Allen can't call for a recount, though, because of electronic voting. Who knows what might have gone wrong with those machines? The difference between Webb and Allen was 0.3%. I know one or two semi-scrupulous citizens here in C'ville who might just have considered hacking the machines here, although I strongly believe this was not the case.

Is "rediculous" l33t sp34k that I'm just too old to get (like "teh"), or are there just that many people on Slashdot that don't know how to spell ridiculous?

I'm not trying to be the spelling police here or anything, I'm just wondering. I don't remember *ever* seeing that word misspelled prior to reading Slashdot (unlike the confusion with they're/their/there, for example), and so I'm guessing this might just be an overused joke (e.g., manbearpig).

Head over to ABC News Politics Index and you'll find 4 stories (all posted today) on the Political Radar sidebar about John Kerry's "botched joke". The pre-released text (as in released prior to him making the gaffe) makes it quite clear that it was, indeed, a botched joke. What I find odd, however, is that there are 4 stories in a row about it. If this was George W. Bush, Cheney, or some other prominent Republican, I'm certain a number of people would be making comments about the liberal mainstream media. I just bring this up to help lift the selective perception bias of those who really believe in the myth of a liberal mainstream media. (Yes, I'm familiar with the study that found that the mainstream media tends to cite "liberal" think tanks more than "conservative" think tanks. That study did not take into account, however, that the "liberal" think tanks might just have more validity than the "conservative" ("We call it life") think tanks.)

Yesterday, I wrote a JE about this post. The good news is that it's more rare than common. I know a few conservatives here at /. (some of which are even my friends/fans) bemoan the liberal group-think that exists here. However, yesterday, on an article about nuclear power plants, you could tell that the general slashthink consensus was that nuclear power plants are, basically, good. That is, from a pragmatic point, they're better than coal, and we haven't figured out how to get energy from pink unicorns. Even less likely (than getting energy from pink unicorns) is the possibility that we will start using less electricity.

So, I take this as evidence that slashthink is basically just *thinking*. Sure, there are people (on both sides) who like to spout talking points, but basically it seems there are a lot of people here (on both sides) who actually do their own thinking. Since reality has a well-known liberal bias, that sometimes comes across as liberal group-think, but I don't think that's what's happening. Basically, we /. denizens are, on the *average*, educated, logical individuals.

No doubt I'll come across a thread tomorrow that will change my mind on all this, but, for today, I'm an optimist. Don't get too used to it.