The "debate" is between evidence and special interests
That is an outrageous lie. Given how often the counter position is stated, there is no way that you are now aware of it. So you must be telling what isn't truth despite the fact that you know that it is false. That's a lie. The interests on the side of AGW theory are much better funded and have much more at stake than the skeptics. So as far as the funding is concerned, it is the skeptics who have an uphill battle. As far as calling the collected data "evidence", that is also a lie, because most of the skepticism is of the conclusions drawn from the collected data. You don't need evidence to counter a bad conclusion if you can show that the interpretation mechanisms are flawed.
specifically, giving up fossil fuels
How do you fail to grasp that this is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor and an unprecedented power grab? How do you shill for a study which might even slightly question the extremes of AGW predictions. AGW is a theory which is used to make calls for drastic dystopian change to the world. How do you possibly ask to do that without at evidence even when it is presented?
The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.
The reason that proponents of the anthropomorphic theory are much, much more suspect is that they refuse to admit that there is more money on the side of that GW camp. It's just not money coming from private hands. This theory is widely seen as a way to increase government power through arbitrarily-applied regulation and equally arbitrary government subsidies. As much money as the oil industry has, the governments get to print money, so they have more.
Only when there is no outside bias. Given the tremendous pressure applied on the scientific community by the government and the media to comply with the AGW agenda or be labeled a pariah, and given how vitriolic and visceral the attacks on skeptics are (even going so far as to relabeling them "deniers" so as to pull their credentials as thinking individuals), there is no credible way to claim that there is no outside bias. Any claims to the contrary are down right insane.
And where exactly is this being 'vilified'?
Slashdot (the headline of this post, for one) felt the need to counter Bloomberg's summary with NY Times summary.
All I see is a study that accepts mainstream climate science and offers another data point about climate sensitivity
You must be talking about something else then. The study claims the data shows plateauing since the 2000. It doesn't directly conclude that the previous conclusions (that GW is anthropogenic) were wrong. But it does provide evidence to support investing such a possibility.
An oil-producing country says that burning oil is okay. News at 11.
You probably meant oil-exporting. Most countries in the world are oil producing. Only the oil-exporting ones can be argued to have an interest in selling oil.
Oh, and that aside, you are an unbelievable tool. The likes of you were the ones running the inquisition... not arguing for it, not providing the philosophical basis for it, not the ones paying for it. You are of the ilk that took the pleasure in just being a part of it.
Science doesn't work that way.
Didn't. Or isn't supposed to But scientists are human. They do have to eat. Which means they have to work for profit or for hand outs. And then it's just the matter of who's motivated to give the hand outs (grants).
bad news for the deniers
I don't know too many deniers. Plenty of skeptics though. And the more ad hominems are used to defend "science" (for example, by calling skeptics "deniers"), the less scientific credibility these positions have.
you'd have a million guys
Who'd pay for it? If you can't establish credibility, you can't get paid. If you question paid-for consensus, you get shut down as not credible. It's catch 22. Unless you show that a lot of grant money goes to credible efforts to actively disprove the hypothesis, you can't claim that it's been tested and vetted. You need to show me where you have grants which actually motivate contrarian evidence. An no, oil company payments don't count. Because receiving those immediately discredits the researchers. So can you show me government sponsored research aimed at disproving AGW and done by researchers who are paid more only if they can successfully challenge some of the standing hypothesis? No? Only grant money if they provide further evidence supporting government control and intervention? Nough said.
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that a person who cannot properly use C (and understand how memory management works) has no business writing mission-critical software in any language. JVM's garbage collector is for sissies. =P
You are an armature. Making mark-and-sweep mission critical actually requires a trick which DOES include keeping track of all memory you grab from the heap. Relying on gc is only something you can afford to do with low-frequency-creation-destruction objects. Just so you understand, I have written systems which relied on GC-based languages and which had to create and destroy objects faster than GC could handle them. And the way I did it did not make the system grow to the worst-case-scenario use pooling. Tell me I am a sissy to my face... cause my code will run circles around your code
Object-oriented is good for projects that need to be maintained
Only if you think that a program "does" stuff. If you think of the actions in the program as secondary to what is being accomplished, OO reduces the attention span foot print.
less duplication means less typing
You are a bad person. I mean it. From the bottom of my heart. You think that 20 seconds of your typing is worth 20 minutes of my reading.
entirely optional. and can be turned off at compile time.
only part of runtime if you want it to be.
dynamic memory allocation and the crappy way new/delete handle out of memory
utter unadulterated nonsense. you have multiple ways of handling memory allocation. you can have custom memory management schemes. C standard library pretty much is guaranteed to cause memory fragmentation.
no _standard_ way to specify order of global constructors/destructors
if it's an issue, than don't make them global. there are standard (ie, language guaranteed) ways to control their run order... they come directly from C, btw, so not sure if you know both languages as well as you think
Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin