The ONLY reason you "immediately knew" his name is Mark Steyn's baseless accusation of scientific fraud against him,

Have you even bothered to READ his paper and READ the criticisms against it? Baseless? Poppycock. Go to climateaudit.org and read in excruciating detail ( statisticians don't make for the best reading ) on the problems in the methodology, improper use of statistical methods, etc.

Dear lord, Mann has been fighting this case since 2012?

Are you nuts? He is the PLAINTIFF. It has taken 12 years because HE (Mann/his legal team) has been dragging it out for this long. It is a travesty that things are allowed not to be heard within a year.

I doubt he will be able to skip out like he did for the Canadian suit he lost ( https://climatecasechart.com/n... ). The guy is a charlatan, and it's amazing that anyone with any ability to do critical thinking wouldn't see him as such. I have the popcorn ready for the mental gymnastics that is about to start.

Use EFF's Let's Encrypt (ie Certbot). It's free (though it requires a setup on the target machine). Works great once you have it properly installed.

"a six-day weather forecast today is as good as a two-day forecast was in the 1970s ." If memory serves, the 70s were before weather satellites / Doppler radar was commonplace. If you give the good forecasters back then the /DATA/ we have today, we would have a better comparison of "accuracy"/benefit of the models. You can see from a graph from a previous /. article that at least hurricane prediction has only improved modestly since ~2003 ( https://science.sciencemag.org... ) where most of the supercomputer stuff would have taken place.

The problem is that people use the models for an answer instead of it being a tool. Yes, sometimes the current forecast is right on the money. But at the same time, there are times that it is spectacularly wrong. People seem to think the models are this all-seeing answering machine. In *some* cases (like aerodynamics), that may be the case. However, weather forecasting can't be mentioned in the same breath as that. So I would much rather have a forecast like it was in the 80/90s which was much more vague, but had much less surprises.

The question has never been (aside from the fringe people) about if CO2 adds a heating component - it was always been HOW MUCH. Look up "Climate sensitivity" ( and the CO2 sensitivity has been all over the map ). And as for "basic physics", think of the problem like this: If you drink 1/4 cup of water @ 120 degF every hour, what is your core body temperature going to be after 18 hours (well start at 98 degF at hour 0)? You can figure out the amount of heat in the water to several decimal places (ie, you /KNOW/ the heat put into the system, not guessing at it like CO2).

For starters, it's hard to make a defensible argument for terrorism. Any "controversy" is usually concocted from the AGW side trying to avoid defending their positions.

If one is going to do a risk management assessment properly, one must enumerate the risks, enumerate the benefits, enumerate the costs, figure the impact of any mitigation and figure the probability of the event in the first place (and this list is just off the top of my head - I'm sure there's a couple more that I am forgetting). Your example is a very poor example - Terrorism IS NOT a imagined problem - there are several buildings missing from NYC and several large passenger planes destroyed just from 9/11. Contrast that with Global Warming, where it's not clear it's even a bad thing - warmer climates mean that plants are better off and people freeze to death less often. There seems to be less violent storms. Why would you do risk management on something that is beneficial? Plus your simplistic scenario leaves out the cost of the mitigation. When "doing something" means you are forcing the poor of the world to live with the cost of higher energy prices (ie, higher food costs), one really has to question the motivation of the ones proposing these ideas (and if you don't think this is a the case, just look at what the production of ethanol and the diversion of corn to make this "green" fuel have caused).

Excuse me? There is no reasonable mitigation strategy that I've seen where the results of the mitigation would stop AGW.

And what SCIENCE are you basing this off of?! Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise where it says that the rise in sea level between 1870-2004 is 7.7 INCHES. Yes. Like millions have died from the 7.7 inches that has already happened. Good Grief. Statements like what you said is why I'm saying that you can replace "Global Warming" with "The Angry God" in many of the AGW arguments without changing any of the meaning, since there are no facts to back them up.

Yet we pump billions into the defense against terrorism, but we keep bickering on whether or not Global Warming may or may not happen. Anyone able to explain the sense in that?

If you are trying to compare a real problem (terrorism) to something you aren't even sure exists or not, you aren't making an apples to apples comparison. I would change the question and ask you, "well, we *KNOW* that asteroidd hit the Earth and that this has very, very bad effects. Why are we spending so much time worrying about global warming than we do about that?"

How can you say this is a good guide when it only shows the withdrawal amounts and not the consumption amounts? Not that there isn't water use issues, but distortions of reality like this doesn't help solve any problems.

-

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

From page 38 (I guess you stopped with the pictures):

and a little later:

So, in essence, the areas that have water issues uses water more wisely. The ones that have more water than they know what to do with, splurges. Yet another "problem" that doesn't really exist.

> Someone couldn't use the actual libraries that came with a GPL'd language in a commercial application

s/commercial/non-gpled/ (small nit). In any case, why not? If the interfaces themselves has no protection, all that has to be done is ship the original source of the library and the binary .so ( maybe even the .a ) of the libraries and call them at will. Header files might get tricky if it contains a lot of actual code (but this is an issue currently), but if you ignore this edge case, you'll see that there is no reason why any GPLed library is copyleft beyond what's in the library itself.

You don't understand how a copyleft works. The long and protracted discussion of it can be found here.. What mechanism do you think is used to make calling programs honor what the callee's license is?

From the sound of things, all GPLed libraries are now viewed like LGPLed libraries (er, or more accurately, non-modified combining is OK) in Europe... Not that that is a bad thing....

I think your definition of "tow" and the "tow" used in the article are different. I presume the one in the article thinks "tow" as in "what a tow truck" will do. If "towing" meant "Flat-Bedding", we wouldn't need the words "Flat-Bedding".

But. in reality, there's no difference between the two. To those who think wikileaks are terrorists, you guys are nuts. However, they are in no doubt engaged in plain and simple espionage. They are spies plain and simple, thus they should be treated as such. No worse, no better.

As to those who think secrets are bad, please go to whatever organization you work for and get them to have payroll information for all employees public or at minimum use facebook as your personal notebook/diary/logbook (and don't self-censure).

And, to those who think US diplomacy does no good, think of what kept India from attacking Pakistan when Mumbai attack happened (unless you think that that action would be a good thing).

Add police (well, at least ones with guns) and any armed guards (armored cards, secret service, nuclear facilities). Killing someone isn't the issue. It's what's being done to warrant it is.