Slashback: VoIPersecution, Israel, Plug-in 334
That damn eye of Sauron is just everywhere! Amigan writes "Over a year ago, the Israeli government did a buyout on their contract with Microsoft - and it was hailed as a great opportunity for OSS. It is now being reported that the Israeli government is back in the Microsoft fold - and again licensing software - not outright purchasing."
No good technology goes unpunished by the inertia police. First it was the state of Texas that decided to sue Vonage over consumer impressions of its support of 911 service; now, as kamikaze-Tech writes "Luispr, a member of the Vonage VoIP Forum has posted a TMC.net article titled VoIP E911: Michigan Atty. General Says Vonage Misleads." That article notes Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox's announcement "that Internet-based telephone service provider Vonage Holdings Corporation will now face legal action for misleading consumers about the company's emergency 9-1-1 service."
Note that this is specifically about ads alleged to mislead customers about 911 capabilities, related to but distinct from the objection to VoIP that it doesn't in the first place provide the same location information to 911 operators that conventional telephone service does. See also this earlier story about the FCC pushing 911 requirements on VoIP providers.
Anything you like as long as we already agree. Lawrence Person writes "According to this article, the widely reported study showing unanimous 'scientific consensus' on Global Warming ('not a single paper asserted otherwise') is not only deeply flawed, but that same consensus is artificially maintained by Science and Nature rejecting any papers which disagree with it. 'Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly. Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet."'"
Larger bounty could be a quicker picker-upper. crhylove writes "The good people over at downhillbattle.org have upped the bounty for their gaim filesharing plugin from $500 to a nice $1k. They say their initial developer has gone AWOL, and that there is an additional $332 in the fund for the developers discretion. I myself want this plugin! Go GAIM!"
It's so good that people give it away for free. Beth writes with what may be the most impressive of the various agit-prop, free-labor Firefox marketing campaigns undertaken around the event of the 50 millionth download of the browser; "To celebrate 50 million downloads of Firefox, a crew of six students from Oregon State University painted a 30 foot wide mural in the Memorial Union Quad. With kool-aid. And cornstarch. Over 20 pounds of it."
With that much cornstarch... (Score:3, Funny)
Cornstarch + Food Colouring + Camera = Slashdotted (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll admit... (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened the last time we, as a nation, took drastic and pre-emptive action based on a "consensus" of highly self-interested "experts?" We invaded Iraq.
I'm amazed at the thought process that leads the typical leftist Slashdotter to decry the forced consensus that there were WMDs in Iraq on one hand, while arguing vociferously in favor of rewiring the entire world's economy based on even slimmer evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Why is wishful thinking, fuzzy reasoning, and bad scientific practice good for environmentalists but bad for the Bush Administration?
Re:I'll admit... (Score:4, Insightful)
2) If you want to call things "leftist", why not just use "Communist", which is what you're trying to imply?
3) BSAF was happy to report they put 23% less stuff in the air last year, down to 17,000 million tons. Fifty years ago people thought you could put anything you wanted into the ocean and rivers and it would affect anything. BZZZZTTTT. It did. It's common sense that's it's a good long-term move to minimize our effect on the environment, for purely selfish reaons. It's what they call a CONSERVATIVE approach to natural resources.
Now post with a real fucking name next time coward.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:3, Insightful)
No you didn't. You assumed you knew.
Why am I being annoyingly nitpicky? Because people claim they know stuff all the time. Yet, I imagine in your case, you've never even been to Iraq.
It's like me saying I knew Episode II was going to suck. I didn't actually know until I saw it. It'd be very arrogant of me to try to pass that little prediction off as some sort of positive attribute to my character.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
Re:I'll admit... (Score:3, Informative)
For the most part the inspectors were there to ensure compliance with the orders to destroy the known stockpiles of weapons and ensure that whatever the UN had sealed would remain sealed.
What the UN and later the US inspectors found was that the UN seals were still in place, the stockpiles were as we had expected them to be and that no new weapons programs had been established, perhaps as your evidence sug
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
its ok though, I know
Re:I'll admit... (Score:5, Insightful)
This little chestnut always cracks me up. When I say we went to war for oil, why do people assume that "for the average American" should be tacked on to the end? Let's spell this out. We went to war because the oil companies are going to make out like bandits. According to Yahoo [yahoo.com] the Oil & Gas industry is posting year-on-year revenue growth of almost 30% and profit growth of almost 40%!!! I don't think the oil companies are unhappy with how the economy is doing. And if you don't like it "go fuck yourself" as Dick Cheney likes to say.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
Administration: "They got nukes."
Everyone, everywhere: "What?"
A: "Nukes."
EE: "Nuh-uh. Where?"
A: "Over there."
EE: "That's a shoe."
A: "Next to the shoe."
EE: "There's nothing next to the shoe."
A: "Sure there is. Trust us. We know it. Plus, look at this bottle of anthrax I have."
EE: "Uh.
A: "He can make oodles of this stuff."
EE: "..."
Hans Blix: "There's no nukes."
A: "Shut up,
Re: (Score:2)
When was that? (Score:5, Insightful)
When did that happen? The last time the US invaded Iraq they did it despite the opposition of the experts.
the forced consensus that there were WMDs in Iraq
I don't recall any such consensus from any experts. I recall assertions from the US administration, and a US press that refused to defy him after 9/11, but the international press was less credulous and the experts (particularly the experts who knew the most about it) were in no way weighing in on the side of the WMDs. All the push for invading Iraq because of the presence of WMDs came from the US administration and their suspiciously secret and unconvincing "evidence".
By the time of the invasion even the US administration had quit talking so much about WMDs and more about regime change and what a monster Saddam was, because they knew they weren't getting the consensus they wanted.
In fact pro-WMD side more resembles the anti-Global-Warming side, down to the refusal to provide evidence, ignoring the most knowledgable experts in favor of people who do science by press release, and having the might of the most powerful nation on Earth as their strongest argument.
Meanwhile what we have on the other side is a consensus of experts, not US newscasters and the US administration they don't dare defy, just like when the people trying to force the same kind of consensus in the face of the evidence gave George the maneuvering room to get his invasion of Iraq off the ground.
In other words, it didn't happen, you're making it up.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:5, Insightful)
-----
The right of "the self-determination of nations" applies only to free societies or to societies seeking to establish freedom; it does not apply to dictatorships. Just as an individual's right of free action does not include the "right" to commit crimes (that is, to violate the rights of others), so the right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as "the right to enslave."A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal - but neither can do it by right.
It does not matter, in this context, whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). Whether a slave society was conquered or chose to be enslaved, it can claim no national rights and no recognition of such "rights" by civilized countries - just as a mob of gangsters cannot demand a recognition of its "rights" and a legal equality with an industrial concern or a university, on the ground that the gangsters chose by unanimous vote to engage in that particular kind of group activity.
Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.
This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.
-----
from Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness"
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
Bullshit. Pure drivel. Asserting the existence of a right does not bring it into being. "Liberate other nations" is doublespeak for unprovoked war. Civilians always suffer the most during war. It is not for an external force to decide that those who survive will be better off with their government overthrown and many of their number murdere
No (Score:2)
This logic is very similar to John Locke's arguments in his Second Tretise on Government [constitution.org], which in many ways is as much a founding document of the United Stated as the Constitution is. The phrases "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," in the Declaration of Independance are directly inspired by Locke. Go read it, and when you ar
Re:No (Score:2)
Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure. It is no better than, in fact- it is just another name for- the mafia.
Re:No (Score:2)
According to Locke, No.
Nations have those rights that were given to them by the consent of those who formed them. One of the rights that men have is "EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE."[1]
When a proper government is formed, this right is ceeded to the government. But only as it applies to members of that government (citizens) and to forigeners inside the jurisdiction of that gove
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
Pretty idiotic to not even know the definition of a cult. Sounds like they've heard of Ayn Rand, but never been exposed to anything she's ever written.
Or maybe they think its cool to accuse someone of holding exactly the opposite position that they do hold.
The problem is, too many idiots in this country hear that and think its true, and never bother to actually read what she did write.
I love the Anton Levay smear-- exactly the kind of idiotic irrelevant jab that passes for "discourse" in our adle-brain
Re:I'll admit... (Score:4, Insightful)
Minutiae? It was the reason they wanted you to go to war, remember? No, I guess you don't, you are an expert on doublethink.
There is no such thing as "the right to enslave."A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal - but neither can do it by right.It does not matter, in this context, whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany.
Or by capitalism, like in the US?
Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen.
I submit, that by Rand logic, any country has the moral right to invade the US based on how they treat the people enslaved in Guatanamo bay.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
Capitalism has enslaved you? Jesus, you must have gone to public school.
If you think money is the root of all evil, have you ever asked yourself-- what is the root of all money?
The statements quoted above were apparently written by Ayn Rand, but they are inconsistent wiht her philosophy, and I think taken out of context.
IF not, she loved america so much she overlooked its flaws. I hope one day you understand the ideal she worshipped-- instead of the nationalist socialism that you are apparently taken
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Evil?
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."
Honore de Balzac
French realist novelist (1799 - 1850)
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
How do you see them inconsistent with her philosophy?
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
Individual rights are not subject to popular vote, thus taxation, the invasion of Iraq, and the mere existence of the government --- all of which require the violation of individual rights to carry out-- are all immoral.
Ayn Rand missed it, but the only logical conclusion of her philosophy is the support of anarchism.
At any rate, those leftist idiots have a good saying-
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nations can't make choices. Even democracies do not have the right to violate individual rights (Which she mentions, but doesn't seem to grasp.)
Our government is a criminal conspiracy that doesn't even follow its own laws-- and just because we are less enslaved than the people in the USSR, does not mean we are free.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2, Insightful)
And I suppose that you're perfectly willing to pay for these efforts out of your own pocket?
Max
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2)
Isaeli Government's Playing by the Old Rules (Score:4, Interesting)
They abused FOSS as an ace card against Microsoft, and never intended to proceed further. People have already speculated this would happen back then, but now I guess it's settled. Too bad our elected representatives don't give a damn about anything but their own seat in the Knesset and their own bank account.
Re:Isaeli Government's Playing by the Old Rules (Score:3, Funny)
At last, the truth exposed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At last, the truth exposed! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At last, the truth exposed! (Score:3, Funny)
I wrote similar papers about Longhorn, and now I'm full up on karma!!
Re:At last, the truth exposed! (Score:2)
Re:At last, the truth exposed! (Score:2)
Re:At last, the truth exposed! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps that alarmism sells, and papers which reject alarmism in favor of actual, boring science aren't good for subscription rates.
Max
Re:At last, the truth exposed! (Score:2, Insightful)
If you had a paper proving that there is such thing as an invisible pink unicorn, then there WOULD be a problem with the rejections and the consensus.
Re:At last, the truth exposed! (Score:2)
If we don't believe global warming is happening, what can we lose by not doing anything? And vice versa, what can we lose by considering it real and doing something?
For the first question, we can lose the planet. For the second question, we can lose money and and some time.
I'd go for saving the planet. But it appears some people think that saving money and some time spent to work with the problem is better than having large parts of the planet become impossible to live in...
Re:A skeptic replies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure! Think infrared, with a bit of infrawhite mixed in.
Of course global warming is caused by humans (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Of course global warming is caused by humans (Score:2, Funny)
Science often reject dispersed papers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Science often reject dispersed papers (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's the case here. To quote the summary: "the points he make had been 'widely dispersed on the internet.'".
If your article doesn't contain any original thought or research, it probably isn't going to be published, especially not in Nature.
Re:his qualifications? (Score:2)
As a scientist probably used to publishing papers I'm fairly certain he has qualifications on how to read papers to detemine what it is they claim. Note that he isn't claiming to be doing scientific research in the area of climatology, only that he can read papers too and his analysis shows a stark contrast to the original which claimed "wide spread cons
Re:Science often reject dispersed papers (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, just wanted to add to what you said above - from a quick (admittedly incomplete) search, it appears that Dr. Peiser has no history of contributing to serious research, nor of working with people that do, which may make the editors of a major publication like Science still less likely to want to publish his work.
Science (and many other journals) does have some pretty wacky policies (from the standpoint of encouraging scientific dialogue, anyway), though this is not uncommon - one of the many problems with the current scholarly publishing world (which has a lot of problems).
Re:Science often reject dispersed papers (Score:5, Informative)
You have got to be kidding. How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that a failed google search somehow 'proves' that a person hasn't done any serious research?
I ran two google searches myself on people that I know: one a relatively famous astronomer, and another on a researcher in fisheries and fish biology. Guess what? None of the papers they've published or contributed to come up on google at all. That doesn't mean that they aren't serious scientists doing serious research; all it means is that the stuff they do is too esoteric to be distributed in a way that google tracks.
Real hard science isn't flashy and often doesn't end up on web sites. While the hormonal effects of stress on Columbia river salmon might make for interesting reading to scientists that work in fisheries or biology, it usually isn't the sort of thing that'll see any sort of distribution outside of those who actually find it to be of value (or even understand it in the first place).
Max
Re: Salmons - you might want to work on your expl (Score:2)
Well, maybe you are right that there are papers that do not turn up on the internet, but why does this guy has to spread his ideas the way he does when the media will happily magnify the dissenting ideas of one person, while just mentioning the consensus in a sidenote?
I also wonder, if he is researching the impact of climate change on ancient civilizations, shouldn't he be more open to the idea that clim
Re:Science often reject dispersed papers (Score:5, Interesting)
Peiser's work was not previously disseminated. Science just made that up. See Peiser's web page about this [livjm.ac.uk].
And Nature has always allowed--indeed, supported--preprint archives [nature.com].
Moderators: please note that I've provided links to back up what I say; the parent seems to be a troll or similar.
(Peiser's submission to Science is available on his web page. It's short and easy to read. If it's right, then the original Oreskes paper was fraudulent.)
Dr Peiser should have known about Science magazine (Score:2, Informative)
Come on! Everybody in the scientific community knows that Science and Nature will only accept articles that have not been published electronically first. This is handled in an extremely strict way. The authors are not even allowed to put up a preprint on their ho
Bounties have the opposite effect (Score:4, Insightful)
Reinventing the wheel (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows version:
My AIM menu > Options > Preferences > File Sharing section
Looks fairly functional. You can allow users from your entire buddy list to browse your files, or limit it to a certain group; and optionally have it prompt you before each browse request. The one major thing missing is the ability to search everyone on your buddy list at once, but I suspect this is because AOL doesn't want to become a ??AA target.
Finally the point of my post: Gaim's eventual goal is to have complete compatability with all of the IM networks, yes? Perhaps they should strive to be compatable with official AIM's already-existing feature before reinventing it.
Re:Bounties have the opposite effect (Score:2)
It's like getting into a taxi. You say to the driver: take me to the airport. He asks you "do you want me to take high street or baron street?" and you say "gee, I don't know, which is quicker?" The tax
The report Peiser didn't like (Score:3, Informative)
Note that we only have this guy's word for why he was rejected.
For what it's worth, in my experience hovering around the edge of this field, the consensus is in line with the IPCC report [grida.no], which is not surprising, since the IPCC's task is to report the opinion of the relevant sciences.
Re:The report Peiser didn't like (Score:2)
No, we have copies of the actual messages sent [livjm.ac.uk] back and forth between Reiser and Science, which have been validated by the Telegraph (among others) for their news story [telegraph.co.uk] on the topic of journal censorship of similar views.
Scientific Inertia and Stomach Ulcers (Score:5, Insightful)
I am all for less polution in the air and do my best to reduce/reuse/recycle yadda yadda yadda but I can still remember how scared I was as a pre-teen when I learned at school that the earth was cooling off and headed for another ice-age. I am VERY sceptical of the amount of influence we humans have on the climate etc.
Cheers,
_GP_
Re:Scientific Inertia and Stomach Ulcers (Score:4, Insightful)
And you're exactly the type of person the article is geared towards. Forget the fact that the article doesn't offer any solid evidence or even direct arguments against Global Warming. Just so long as it creates FUD based on the argument that since two studies controverting Global Warming happened to have been rejected by those liberal academic journals there must be a conspiracy going on--thus, Global Warming must be hoax!
Create your own FUD, it's easy!
Just:
1.) Claim to have an objective study refuting X(the actual content/quality of the study is irrelevent since it will never actually come into play. Actually, it's probably good to have poor content since it will help with step 3).
2.) Submit it to a bunch of large mainstream peer-reviewed journals.
3.) Have your papers rejected by the reputable publications.
4.) Claim that there's a conspiracy by proponents of X to silence legitimate studies challenging X. Therefor, X is naturally false.
Re:Scientific Inertia and Stomach Ulcers (Score:2)
Fear is a great motivator. Sad, but true.
Fear tends to be easier to instill in older folks (especially these days, what with alien-like interfaces - ATMs vs. bank tellers, "intelligent" telemarketing using computers and databases, the entarnet and constantly-changing technology).
You betcha that scammers are going to take advantage of the technology divide!
The older, wiser folks will gravitate towards what they know best, which is essentially the concept that nothing in nature changes very fast. Luckil
Re:Scientific Inertia and Stomach Ulcers (Score:4, Funny)
Brought to you by the Proponents of Global Warming and Other Forms of Mass Hysteria!
Max
Re:Scientific Inertia and Stomach Ulcers (Score:2)
I'm not so sceptical. I look at the numbers. Small changes (as in parts per million) in CO2 cause the atmosphere to retain a larger amount of heat. The more CO2, the more energy is trapped on Earth instead of being radiated away.
At 379 ppm, the CO2 levels are at their highest levels that we have knowledge of (ice core samples and such). Earth is retaining more
well I heard... (Score:2)
Well, I heard from the wife of a cod salesman who knows this guy who lives in the same local area as Dr Peiser's ex-lover's hairdresser who had drinks in the same place that Dr Peiser likes to hang out at... well THAT place has DAMN good margaritas...
The newer scientific consensus on global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really think about it, it's kind of hard to work out whether you have a consensus on an issue when the group you are polling never meets. And as far as I can tell noone's volunteering to host a meeting of the world's atmospheric scientists so we can have a vote on the matter. A general reading of the literature (and that means reading much more than Nature and Science) suggests that
a) the science says we "should" be having an effect on global temperature, and
b) we are observing long term temperature change.
The consensus is that a) and b) are connected. For sure there are scientists, some prominent, who claim that the consensus is wrong. However claiming there is no consensus is just not a very useful activity, you really do have to go searching to find scientists who just refuse that this connection exists. That alone should tell you something.
Sadly the nature of the debate for the last 30 years over global warming has been a tug-of-war between very vocal and strident people, most of whom seem to have a political axe to grind and aren't too squeamish to let things like facts and good analysis get in the way of a catchy story that might get you into Time or The New York Times. It's a pity really, because like a lot of younger atmospheric scientists, like myself, really worry about what kind of planet our kids are going to be left with.
What a lot of people don't seem to realise is that, in private, the conversation amongst atmospheric scientists is moving on from whether there is an anthropogenic effect in global warming and onto what the hell we are going to do about the likely impacts. The newer consensus that I think is forming is that the political process is so deeply flawed that only a truly cataclysmic disaster is going to bring about change in the global arena. So basically, we know pretty much what's wrong and we're largely powerless to do anything about it. Just so you know, it leaves you with not such a great feeling. If you look around you'll find smaller conferences and meetings now looking at local climate changes, trying to assess how things are changing and discussing how we might ameliorate some of the changes we are already observing. Over time these will probably become more common till, at some point in the future, the general public will realize that the 'debate' has completely moved on from 'is global warming happening?' and on to 'how are we going to save lives?'. Should be interesting times.
Re:The newer scientific consensus on global warmin (Score:2)
If people can't see a problem immediately nor th effects, most times little if anything will be done about it.
Case and point: The pollution of Lake Eerie. Everyone knew Lake Eerie was in bad shape, but nobody did anything until it actually caught on fire.
Maybe this is a problem of society at large (instant gratification) or maybe it's just that we are fundamental
Consensus on a number that can't be measured? (Score:4, Insightful)
- There is medium term warming since 1700s.
- Human activity is having an effect.
- Natural causes and cycles (solar cycle, 1200 year cycle) are having an effect.
The disagreement is on the weight to assign to natural and human causes. Worse, activists on both sides try to pretend that it is *all* human activity or *all* natural causes.In my opinion, whether the cause is primarily human, or natural, it is pretty much a done deal. We can expect to reach temperatures at least as high as the medieval period in the next few hundred years, more depending on the extent of human influence. Instead of bickering, we should be making long term migration plans. Places like Netherlands and Florida might not be good long term real estate investments. Places like Siberia and Northern Canada might pay off. Looking at what is known about local climates in the medieval temperature maximum would be a good start.
How can such migrations be handled equitably? If the area is currently barren, a homestead policy might be effective. But there will be unforeseen shifts in climate as well. Deserts may bloom. Farmland may become desert.
Re:The newer scientific consensus on global warmin (Score:3, Informative)
I found the temperature profiles measured in Alaskan permafrost described in the first part of Elizabeth Kolbert's devastating series in the New Yorker [newyorker.com] to be extremely clear and decisive. So much of what is attributed to as "climate change" is easily dismissed as anecdotal (at least by those who wish to deny change.) But the permafrost is a spectacular low-pass filter, and provides incon
Re:The newer scientific consensus on global warmin (Score:2, Interesting)
Change might be coming. But to call it a "catastrophe" is just braying alarmism, the sort of hype that so-called environmental movements use to scare people into sending them money.
And there is no solid evidence whatsoever - not a smidgeon - that human beings have caused this change, or are contributing to it. Even if you accept the idea that humans are contributing to climate change (based on faith, since yo
Re:The newer scientific consensus on global warmin (Score:2)
I've done more than "a little reading" on the topic. Fact is there isn't anything remotely approaching a consensus that human activity is in any significant fashion "contributing to climate change". The jury is still out, primarily because we don't have the d
Re:The newer scientific consensus on global warmin (Score:2)
For a fictional treatment of exactly this, See Kim Stanley Robinson's Forty Signs of Rain [newscientist.com]. In this the catastrophe is a massive storm and flooding of Washington DC. This is not like the rather silly Day After Tomorrow, but s
Holy crap! (Score:2)
Oh My God! (Score:3, Interesting)
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/05/2005)
More sunlight is reaching the Earth's surface than it was 15 years ago, scientists reveal today.
American researchers say there has been a four per cent rise in the amount of solar radiation reaching the planet's surface since 1990.
Several studies have shown that up until the late 1980s, four to six per cent less sunlight penetrated the atmosphere than during the 1950s.
Researchers believe the shift could be explained by the varying quantity and composition of aerosols, tiny solid and liquid particles suspended in the air.
Other theories include changes in cloud cover or in atmospheric transparency caused by volcanic eruptions.
Scientists believe that an increase in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface could add to the greenhouse effect, the warming caused by the build-up of carbon dioxide and other gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere.
Many believe the effects of these trends are already being seen in the melting of polar ice and glaciers.
Offtopic but funnay (Score:2)
I wonder if this will appear in satellite imaging? (Score:2)
I'd love to have been able to see it from a higher angle.
Israel vs Microsoft? (Score:2)
Everyone boycott Microsoft! They support terrorism!
Peiser's 34 er 33 counterexamples (Score:2)
Ice Age/Global Warming (Score:2)
We are in an ice age (minor) headed out from a major one. If we were out of the ice age the polar caps would be gone and we would be using much more AC.
The weather is changing all the time. Does that mean it's beyond influence? Not even close.
If the US wanted to it would be absolutely trivial to bring an ice-age back. Hell, Microsoft could probably do it if they were in the mood. Just get enough fine dust into the atmosphere and the problem is solved.
Hell, some fo
Re:Ice Age/Global Warming (Score:2)
Says the person typing this via computer, the construction of which is one of the most polluting industries on the planet. Not to mention the fossil fuels being burned at the local coal-based power plant to produce the electricity he needs to post to Slashdot and surf for porn.
While you're wasting valuable natural resou
Re:Ice Age/Global Warming (Score:2)
Honest question for global warming advocates (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems well established by that same data that begining in the early fourties there was an extended period of gradually decreasing global temperatures.
It seems well established that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been increasing throughout this entire period.
How do environmentalists account for the two decades of decreasing global temperatures?
If sometimes CO2 goes up and global temperatures go up, while other times CO2 goes up and global teperatures go down and we have no explanation for this, isn't the only reasonable conclusion that we don't understand global temperature well enough to draw conclusions about the factors that drive global climate change?
I wouldn't accept any other scientific theory that suspended operation for two decades unless there were some clear explanation for this aberation. Why do we accept global warming?
Re:Honest question for global warming advocates (Score:3, Interesting)
True (underlying temps at least).
"It seems well established by that same data that begining in the early fourties there was an extended period of gradually decreasing global temperatures."
WAR + aftermath
"It seems well established that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been increasing throughout this entire period."
Prior to 1960 the CO2 numbers are not reliable.
Imagine the end of WW2,
Re:Honest question for global warming advocates (Score:4, Insightful)
Global climate is not some over simplified example in a high school text book like you propose here. Rather global climates are a result of a staggeringly complex balance of interconnected factors and Educated environmentalists see that the activities of man are beginning to influence some of these factors. Change some inputs then some of the outputs change.
Educated environmentalists care because the impact of any measurable change to global climate most likely will cause significant changes in the global social and political state.
For example a slight global warming has a number of interesting potential effects like moving America's "Bread Basket" northwards towards Candida and dramatically increasing the area covered by 'tropical' disease vectors like Malaria, Yellow fever, and the African sleeping sickness. Typically the results of upheavals of this sort of magnitude are wars.
Of course there are knee jerk reactionaries on both sides of the issue who have there opinion and never will let anyone change it. And of course this whole thing has been grossly oversimplified so that it can be spoon fed to people of the evening news, sad really.
Still if you are really interested in the topic loose the media supplied moniker "Global Warming" and google about for "Climate Change" it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to find some studies that back your existing opinion up and a couple of evenings to learn about what's being measured, how they apparently interact, and the consequences of the results. Then you can make an informed decision about it.
Hope That Helps
yes, it's all Nature's fault (Score:3, Funny)
ExxonMobile funding IPN (Score:5, Informative)
and guess who's a contributing writer to the IPN [exxonsecrets.org]
1332 dollars for a gaim plugin? (Score:2, Funny)
Now if they threw in another five bucks we'd have a totally different story
Re:on global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure some of us would survive...
Re:on global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
I *do* believe that humans could change the climate since:
* Every time I fly over land I am constantly amazed by how much humans have altered the surface of the earth. In western Europe I'd be suprised if there was a significant percentage of the land cover that wasn't shaped by human hands. And Europe doesn't even have a large percentage of the population of the world- or even the highest densities of people! Does it really suprise you that we might actually change things on an even larger scale than that?
* In the last century and a bit our profile of energy consumption has changed from 'most energy used by humans consumed as food' (either human or livestock) to 'energy consumed by food a small percentage of the energy consumed by a human'. Even our food is more energy intensive (transport, fertilizer, packaging, more meat fewer vegetables). So the environmental footprint of each human (especially in the first world) is simply vast compared to humans only four or five generations ago. And of course our global population is larger than it has ever been (and not likely to start declining for a few more decades).
* The gloabl warming predictions aren't talking about climate changes of 100's or 10's of degrees- they are talking about degrees of change in temperature over the next decades.
Unfortunately that change is different in different places- so sometimes it is up and sometimes it is down! And our infrastructure is often frail in the face of change. A change in the type of snow in the UK affects how trains run (they can't get traction so trains are delayed), small changes in temperature in cold climates make it more likely embankments will collapse leading to road closures, an extra few degrees of temperature can cause dryness which causes dust on power lines that causes arcing and power outages when the first humidity comes along, early frosts affecting crops and general drop in productivity as the regional crop mix changes to adapt to slightly altered local environment.
These aren't thunderous typhoons and dramatic storms. This is the real world of being nibbled to death by ducks. You don't see dramatic changes and societal collapse, you see just... things breaking getting a little worse, bit by bit. Things get a little more expensive overall and oranges are very expensive some times of year. Alright in the first world where we can buy our way out of trouble. Kind of crap in Africa where people die instead.
So I *do* find that believable. And from a practical point of view I'd have thought that caution was the appropriate approach when playing with things like, you know, the global ecology.
Re:on global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
What about the appropriate approach when playing with things like, you know, the global economy, y'know, trillions of $ ?
Re:on global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
There's also another factor to consider. What if, for instance, in 1960 it had been determined that a gigaflop computing facility was of national importance? Billions of dollars would have been spent, acres of vacuum tube era computers would have been installed and so on... However, by simply waiting 40 years that gigaflop computer fit on one person's de
Re:on global warming (Score:2)
Your entire plan hinges on prescience.
And at the same time, you ignore that IF a project HAD gone forth, it likely would have advanced computer technology by itself by decades. Some of the greatest advances of our time have come about as a result of trying to reach an enormous, far-off goal. We could have had today's PCs two decades ago.
As much as I'm in
Re:on global warming (Score:2)
Basically, to completely disbelieve in
Re:on global warming (Score:2)
Furthermore, I don't see why you believe that we could not contribute to massive climate change. We are provably changing the atmosphere. If we kept doing so indefinitely then why wouldn't the climate keep changing? The climate we have today is totally different than before
Nonsense (Score:2)
"That is far greater change than anything humans could possibly contribute to"
Says who? You? That's the most illogical jump I've seen someone take in years. What did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night or something?
Re:on global warming (Score:2)
In the course of the past 200 years or so, we've wiped out countless species, set lake Eerie on fire, destroyed 20% of the rainforests, and have polluted millions of gallons of fresh water with lovely materials such as chemicals involved in rocket fuel.
We're currently outpacing natural CO2 production.
And we have drastically increased the amount of pollutants in our atmosphere. To the point where in cities they actually recomme
Re:on global warming (Score:2)
Re:on global warming (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ummm..... ever think there's a reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.
As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."
Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."
He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.
If they were regularly being consulted for reviewing publications submitted to the very same journal, that suggests that the journal editorial staff considered them reasonably competent -- that is, until they decided to disagree.
Re:On the Global Warming consensus (Score:3, Interesting)
But it still does.
Here endeth the lesson
So which does your statement fall under: lies, damned lies, or politics? Your proof consists entirely of "but it still does" and "there is global warming". At least the media tries to use statistics... you just make an assertion and expect others to view it as proof.
Re:On the Global Warming consensus (Score:3, Interesting)
> warming can
Is that why, based on everything that was published by the major media regarding about global warming in the early nineties, Florida should be underwater by now, but it's, like, not? The media, as near as I can tell, are all so gung-ho about how big a deal global warming is, they exaggerate it out of all proportion.
This isn't to say I don't believe climactic patterns can shift; they can and they (gradually) do. I'm