Be careful, some of us old fogies might be offended!

You must be new around here. " . . . the /. story tells none of the real info and offers only inflammatory and barely-relevant commentary." is the /. standard!

the Grammer Nazi's are going to LOVE the parent. Doesn't anyone on /. READ their shit before they POST it??

If you can't laugh at yourself... We'll do it for you. Over, and over again. I'm still ROFL

Whoosh!

Personally I used to play a lot of the longer games (mostly strategy types) but lately I've gotten into games that have a lot of shorter sections like Plants versus Zombies or World of Goo. That's due to two things. First is it's easy to play a section when I have a little bit of time and there is a certain amount of replayability since you can change your strategy. Secondly I was running low on disk space for a long while. That meant I couldn't put one of the large games on the system. Now that I've added a new HD I'll probably be putting on some of the larger games again like Supreme Commander and Age of Empires 3. I would love to say I'll be putting Command and Conquer 4 on the system but based on what I'm hearing about the game I don't think I'll be buying it even though I played all of the previous games in the series. Som at least for me, both short and long games are great. Which one I go for depends on how much time I have. I'll definitely be looking at Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 when they become available. Both games will take a long time to finish, but they are also broken up into short sections that probably won't take more than an hour or two to finish. That seems to be the best approach since it allows the player to maintain their progress in the game while allowing them to quit at just about any point.

#7 says:

In other words, as has been noted, the numbers from the tree rings don't match the numbers from the stations over a given period of time. (As it turns out, in this period of time, the tree rings show a markedly lower temperature than their data sets of instrument readings show.) The issue isn't whether they've "highlighted this issue" in "presentations of this work" -- they have; they're more than willing to say "yeah, the tree rings don't support global warming trends over period of time X". The issue is that they've unceremoniously dumped these tree ring data from their data sets, for no apparent better reason than that it doesn't fit their preconceived conclusions! That's what you should be looking into! Not whether they say "tree ring data and instrument data diverge", but whether they're justified in dumping the data that diverges from their pet theories!!!

I would love to see more vampire analogies here on Slashdot. Now, if someone combines a vampire analogy with a car analogy I believe we'll have reached 'analogy panacea'.

1. The global temperature will increase - predicted by Hansen's model from early eighties. There is an observed increase in temperature.

That's not an AGW prediction, that's also a predication based on us just coming out an ice age. Try again please.

2. Arctic and antarctic to warm faster than rest of the planet - predicted by all models. Observed.

That's not an AGW prediction, it's a prediction of warming no matter what the source. Try again please.

3. Troposphere to warm and stratosphere to cool - predicted by all models. Observed.

And yet again, not an anthropogenic prediction, but a prediction for the increase of many GHG's from a great many reasons.

4. Increasing signature of CO2 in long wave spectrum form top of atmosphere. Observed by satellite spectrographically.

Which is not an AGW prediction, but a prediction tied to increased CO2 concentrations. The nature of the correlation is hardly well spoken to.

5. Increasing acidification of the oceans. Observed.

Strike 5.

and plenty more where those came from. Please cut the crap about climate science not being falsifiable. Try looking at the evidence, the science and the facts for a change.

Please present the 'others' then. The real trick to AGW as a theory is falsifiable predictions are hard to come by. Virtually all the observations and data that can be gathered about it still rely on an understanding of the relationship between human CO2 emissions and global CO2 concentrations, and then from global CO2 concentrations to long term climate trends. It's easily proven that increased CO2 increases warming. Demonstrating that human activity has introduced so much new CO2 as to cause historically unprecedented warming requires extraordinary proof. I've yet to find any articles claiming evidence above the level of suggestive.

I have never had this sort of experience when sampling any of the readily available linux distros. As an aside, it's difficult to sort through any post that is a bunch of generalities with NO ACTUAL information or links to actual information.

I suspect that Grandma would call to complain . . .