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


Forgot your password?

Comment "A highly respected journal" (Score 4, Insightful) 286

As a subscriber to Nature I find it interesting that when we're talking about amino acids Nature is a highly respected international weekly journal of science but.... when we're talking climate science it's the nexus of an evil, duplicitous, Socialist, Marxist, environmentalist cabal bent on destroying the fabric of American society.

Comment Re:A big book (Score 4, Insightful) 78

The key phrases you are looking for are "rainbow tables"; "time / memory trade-off"; "distributed computing"; "embarrassingly parallel"; "GPGPU Computing" and probably "More's Law".

So now computers are faster than when they cooked that "100,000 years" phrase. They are employing many different computers with multiple cores. GPUs are much faster at this calculation that X86 processors. Rainbow tables are ingenious methods to store precomputed results, so the actual cracking is simple comparisons between encrypted text with known values and the data you are attacking.

Comment Re:How they acted? (Score 1, Insightful) 736

As you are clearly posting in a position of ignorance let me clear a few things up for you.

1: "Scientific Journal" describes "Nature", it is not the journal's name. It is a peer reviewed international weekly journal of science.
2: They & hundreds of other scientists reviewed the leaked data & correspondence and the published data. They concluded that there is nothing in this stolen data which effects our current understanding of climate science in any way.
3: They also concluded that many people are taking some phrases out of context and insisting that they mean something completely different than the context otherwise indicates. This is what you are doing.
4: Anthropogenic climate change is on going and there is ample evidence of it, even if we were to unfairly discount the work of CRU or the scientists named in this manufactured controversy.
5: That you assert if something was real there would have to be no data analysis or manipulation suggests to me that you have never done any kind of serious scientific investigation... or used a measurement or diagnostic device of any complexity.

Comment Re:The most telling word in the whole article: (Score 2, Funny) 736

I find it fascinating that denailists like yourself express wild fantasies with religious overtones when complaining about science. I also find it interesting how you are so willing to assert conspiracies of gigantic proportions to explain consensus in the scientific community. It's pretty pathetic to see people so divorced from reality.

Comment Re:Great... (Score 1) 822

Nature Magazine recently published an editorial "Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy". In fact no credible scientist has made a statement which disagrees with that editorial in any meaningful way. I don't need to defend anything concerning climate change science because there is nothing which challenges the science. So keep grasping at lies & and conspiracy theories. Because those and my typo are all an ignorant fool such as yourself has.

Comment Re:Great... (Score 5, Informative) 822

Your 'point' is is not factually correct. Nothing in the CRU email and data indicates scientists who subscribe to an anthropogenic cause of climate change have not been systematically lying or engaging in unethical practices to support their work. There already are *mountains* of evidence from a huge array of sciences supporting both climate change and an anthropogenic cause. And nothing on Wikileaks invalidates any of the work done at CRU or any other climate research institute.

The reality of all that hoopla is the people doing the agitating had long since decided that not only can the climate not change but even if it did man couldn't possibly have an impact.

Slashdot Top Deals

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.