Holy Shit Batman! Those are your two options. All good or all evil? How about this as option number 3:

3) He really believes in this "freedom and openness at all costs," thing. He is a zealot perhaps, but an idealistic one. He really thinks that the best thing for the world is to have no secrets that all information from any source should be public for all to see. His personal life however, is a total fucking mess. He is a sex addict who likes BDSM "games" and degrading sex with as many partners as possible. He sleeps with any female that moves whether it is free or paid sex, but his partners are not always (or rarely) prepared for his level of aggressiveness. The only redeeming value in his otherwise pathetic attention whore sex addict life is his idealistic zealotry for freedom and openness from governments at all costs.

You know someone who is flawed but has a redeeming quality somewhere. This is not a Disney fairytale where the choices are Prince Charming, Wicked Witch, or background scenery.

I'm not here to defend Gates or the OLPC project, but most critiques I read about Gate's foundation fail to pose the question of "is 'x' better now because of the Gate's Foundation donation or not?" In other words you are free to disagree with his motives and implementation, but don't kid yourself, giving 10 million dollars to a school tech. lab and mandating Windows is still a better outcome for the school and its students than not having 10 million dollars and using an old tech lab with computers that still may be running Windows.

I got a free steam copy with purchase of a new i7 860. Seriously though, having to be online, register a ubisoft account, login every time I play the game, and remain online while playing for a single player game is ridiculous.

If Ubisoft want me to ever buy another one of their games (and I'm a big Tom Clancy game fan) then the DRM will have to go away or change significantly from this non-sense. Especially since I know it would take all of 20minutes or so to find, download, and install a cracked version of the game for free with less hassle.

I don't claim to be the pulse of the nation, but I am one customer who will no longer be a customer. I don't think I'm particularly unique in this regard.

The realclimate.org moderators/article authors are th same ones implicated in the CRU email scandal.

It's not cheap propaganda when their internal emails reveal that they (1) manipulated their own data to justify their results (and publicly denied it I might add); (2) discussed ways to prevent skeptics from publishing in peer reviewed journals; (3) denied FOI requests;(4) asked colleagues to delete emails containing information requested in FOI requests; said they would rather delete their data then give it to a skeptic for an audit;*5) internally knew that the hockey stick graphs was bogus and saying as much as early as 2004; (6) making sure that only "approved" individuals would peer review their papers to assure the message would remain unchallenged; (7) purposefully withholding information from the IPCC that didn't match their published data.

The list goes on and on. Yes, I did spend all weekend reading through the emails, and what I found was disgusting.

The emails do not disproves AGW. They simply demonstrate that a small subset of eco-warriors perverted the scientific method to advance their own beliefs and successfully controlled what information was presented to the public through the peer review process.

I think you are missing the point with this post. Your previous posts have been highly in favor of AGW, which is simply me stating a fact, not a pejorative.

However, now you are claiming that even if he doesn't believe in AGW he should be concerned about the effect of warming on our survival. While that is a very valid point, if he doesn't believe in AGW then cap and trade/carbon offest/economic reorganization to the tune of Trillions of Dollars is not in his best interest of preparing for a warmer planet.

If humans are not contributing to warming (a big if) then what good will altering manufacturing/production/energy patterns have in a newly warmed world?

If you read the emails you would see that:

(1) internally they disregarding the hockey graph as inaccurate as early as 2004 (almost 6 years ago!)

(2) the small group had a list of "known quantities" that peer reviewed each other's papers (i.e., groupthink with no outside influences).

(3) they actively worked to sabotage skeptic papers and journals that published skeptic papers because of "backlash that could hurt the community".

(4) the emails very clearly say that they will not release their data to skeptics under any circumstances regardless of FOI requests that they are legally mandated to respond to. One goes so far as to ask his colleagues to delete emails that deal with the subject being discussed. (that is real scholarly and scientific of him)

(5) One also says that he would "delete the data before handing it over" to a skeptic.

If that is how you view science and the scientific method than I weep for science.


I just want good science. I don't care what the results say to confirm or deny AGW, but the "scientific" methods revealed in the emails boggles the mind and is very disheartening, to say the least. The only loser in this whole episode is science.

I see your guardian article and raise you with this NASA image of average land and ocean temperatures. Image.

You will please take note that since about 2003 the graph is trending down meaning decreasing temperatures.

Does this prove or disprove AGW? of course not! I'm not a denier; I just don't like to see people cherry picking a result and claiming that we face economic DOOM (anti-AGW) or day after tomorrow DOOM (AGW).

AGW proponents are quick to point out local and hemishpereical weather variations that do not apply to a global mean, but then turn around and point to the southern hemisphere ice pack as spelling doom for the world. Even while different parts of both antarctic and arctic icepack are thickening.

To diverage off topic a bit --several small islands around Greenland in 1950 were not connected to the mainland via ice. Between 1960 and 2003(?) the islands were covered and connected by ice. Now once again they are not covered by ice and that is evidence of DOOM? No.

Whoops. Should read...I do not tolerate perversion of science for political goals --least of all when the scientists are the ones responsible for the perversion.

The "trick" email is only one such email and flippantly dismissing it does you no credit. The significance of the leaked emails is not the claim that AGW is a hoax. That is nonsense. The significance of the emails is that they demonstratively prove that a small subset of scientists from leading universities have perverted the scientific method to promote their own eco-warrior beliefs about global warming. I would sincerely hope that Slashdot readers would defend the scientific method first and foremost above dogma.

Here is the shortlist:
(A more complete list can be found at: Bishop Hill) or (you can search the emails yourself at: An Elegant Chaos )

(1) Regarding the "trick" that you are so quick to dismiss. The quote below was taken from this thread at RealClimate.org)

"Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.

Mike Mann’s response speaks for itself. (by the way RealClimate.org is run/moderated by Mike Mann --not the most reliable source given these emails).

"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."

Now go re-read the email about the "trick". email in question

(2) Purposefully denying, lying, and deleting emails and information that were requested in a Freedom of Information Act request. Hiding information on the grounds that the other party only wants to find faults with it.???? Really? What about the idea behind repeating results and falsifying hypothesis. Isn't that what science is all about.

(3) Calling contacts at the BBC to find out why a skeptic article was allowed to be published.

(4) Basing the "hockey stick" graph on 14 hand picked tree samples as proxys to 1960 and smoothing the average flat, then using real temperature data forward in time with padding to project an upward trend, but not the same smoothing used on the pre-1960 numbers. (by the way trees only cover roughly 15% of the earth. Taking 14 samples from that already small sample area does not make for "global" evidence)

(5) Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick back in 2004.

(6) Truncating data to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results.

(7) Admitting to each other that they cannot account for the lack of warming in recent years.

(8) Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has. Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.

(9) Only having papers reviewed by a list of "known quantities" that will give favorable reviews. At the same time making sure that skeptical papers cannot get published in legitimate journals. So, they say publicly that if skeptics were practising "real" science they would be peer reviewed, but behind the scenes they were doing everything in their power to prevent published of any skeptic papers. For a scientist this is intellectually dishonest at best.

The list goes on and on.

Let me be clear. This DOES NOT provide evidence against global warming or that AGW is a hoax. This information ONLY DEMONSTRATES that the science behind a large portion of AGW to date has been heavily manipulated by those with an agenda. Those responsible should be prosecuted and cast out of the scientific community so that REAL SCIENCE can resume. I am not a denier, but I do tolerate pervasion of science for political goals --least of all when the scientists are the ones responsible. If AGW is real then these people have done a huge disservice to the entire global community.

My understanding is that the 5 computers are segregated into two groups: One group of 2 and one group of 3. Each group is programmed in a different language and all 5 computers are programmed by different companies.

That's not entirely true. The Nazi's were damn close to taking Moscow, but Hitler mistakenly committed a majority of his forces to Stalingrad, believing that a victory in Stalingrad would be a PR victory over Stalin. This blunder cost the Germany dearly. Also, Hitler pushed too fast, even by blitzkrieg standards without properly supporting the supply lines, and Hitler split his forces further by sending troops to towards the Middle East rather than completely consolidating on Stalingrad or Moscow.

Mod Parent UP please!!

Nuclear is too expensive to maintain, even though other countries have been doing it successfully for decades, but the U.S. has been concerned about the Middle East and South America since the 1950s. International policy has been concerned about the petrodollar and controlling oil supplies. First Desert Storm under Bush, Sr. then Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush, Jr. Now Global Warming.

Yeah fossil fuels haven't cost us anything at all.

I like wind and solar power, but nuclear can provide the power we need to move away from fossil fuels today! rather than 15-20 years from now when wind and solar is mature and ready for wide-scale deployment. Why does this have to be a zero sum game? Can't we switch to nuclear today and still invest heavily in development and deployment of wind, wave, and solar technologies?

When I argue for nuclear power, and I do, I am not saying we shouldn't be investing in and developing other sources of energy like wind, solar, or (as a dream) fusion. Wind and solar are not mature enough as technologies to replace our current methods of producing power, but nuclear can.

Also, Three Mile Island wasn't a disaster and lumping it with Chernobyl usually means a person doesn't understand either incident and is only parroting what they read in [insert fav. news source here]. Chernobyl was a dangerous design even in the 1970s and modern nuclear reactors failsafe, as in the reaction cannot continue in a failure mode. Chernobyl is simply not possible using modern reactors.

This is not nuclear VS. wind, wave, solar. This is nuclear VS. fossil fuels. Nuclear is easily the superior option to supply our current power needs, WHILE we further develop wind, wave, and solar energy technologies into the future.

Yeah, nuclear is a disaster waiting to happen with all the "Evil Terrorists"(TM) out there......oh, wait, HALF OF EUROPE is powered by nuclear power. I wonder why Germany hasn't been nuked by terrorists or had to deal with nuclear waste in its water supply???? hmm....quick, we need a new FUD excuse to bash nuclear power. (I swear I'm not a troll, but for some people ignorance must be bliss!!!)

Unless you are seriously proposing that today, in 2009, we would build a nuclear reactor similar to Chernobyl, which was KNOWN to be flawed and inherently dangerous back in 1977(?) when it was commissioned --unless that is your proposal, continually harping about the damages and destruction from Chernobyl does nothing except spread FUD and promote ignorance of the one power source currently working that can provide all our power needs, until Something Better Comes Along (TM).

Modern reactors designs all have multiple, redundant, overlapping failsafe designs, that as the name "failsafe" implies...fail...safe... The reaction cannot continue in a failure mode. A Chernobyl type accident is simply not possible with modern designs. I won't even say this knowledge was learned the "hard way" because it was known back in the seventies that Chernobyl was a dangerous design.