Hey I’ve got a wacky idea!
How about if The Reg starts to detail how Trump’s science denialism is actually hurting us all, and refrains from merely publishing some li’l piece that simply points out his idiocy?
124 posts • joined 3 Jan 2009
There are assholes in this world. There are sniveling dickheads. There are embarrassments to humanity. There are worthless wastes of eons of human evolution. There are puke-inducing turdmen who make reasonable folks weep to be members of their species.
And then there's Martin Shkreli ...
"Overall, it is insulting to pretty much anyone who isn't James Damore."
Beautiful line — that is, if one defines "beautiful" to mean, "My sentiments. exactly."
Damore, as you explain and to which I concur, is not the most subtle, most nuanced sandwich at the picnic, tool in the toolbox, knife in the drawer. He may be able to code and/or architect efficiently, but I — if I were a Google manager — would keep him far, far away from any interactions with Actual Humans™.
Fire him? Well, not a bad idea — although such a decision is, of course, dependent upon who else is in his workgroup, if he plays well with others on a daily basis, or if his skills are commiserate with his salary.
But, all in all, it's Google's decision — and Damore certainly didn't help his case by proving that he's not exactly the world's most cogent thinker.
Heaven forfend! Do you actually mean to imply that the Republican-controlled FCC and its minon-master Ajit Pai is actually favoring monopoly business over Average Americans™?! Stop the presses! The populace must be informed! I'm sure that once they realize they're being screwed, they'll rise up against their corporate masters, armed with the requisite pitchforks and torches.
Seriously, though, Kieren, thanks for your careful and detailed report about how the GOP is, yet again, screwing us Americans in ... well ... the opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste matter leaves the body.
Chris, thanks for an excellent, readable, thorough, and eminently understandable article. Having left El Reg over two years ago, and having since devoted all my tech energies towards climate-change science rather than computing, it was pure pleasure to catch up on what many of us in the tech world have seen for decades as the Holy Grail — well, one Grail, at least ("He's already got one! It's very nice ...") — of HPC: the eventual merging of mass storage and direct CPU-addressable memory, preferably in multi-server fabrics (is that still a reasonable bit of descriptive prose? [I'm frightfully out of the loop ...]).
Two quick questions, though: you mention phase-change memory — is that still undead? And how's Crossbar and their ReRAM doing, financially?
Just a quick question, Big John — well, three, actually:
First, please disprove the simple and demonstrable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave (IR) radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades.
Second, please explain how it's meaningless that that warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in, say, the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses to prove that such other forcings as volcanoes, solar activity, aerosols, and other niceties can in no way account for the same global temperature increases.
Third, challenge and refute all of the easily correlated temperature measurements, such as those by NOAA, NASA, UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more.
Or would simply prefer to ignore the well-vetted and carefully analyzed science created — and thoroughly argued over, trust me — by thousands of researchers from a broad range of countries? Or maybe you would go as far as to imply that all of those thousands of scientists' work is somehow an insanely complex and conspiratorial fraud? Might you be one of the "climate science is political" folks who hide behind ludicrous “lib’ruls wanna steal our freedoms ’n‘ guns” arguments? Or might you desperately latch onto crazy ’n‘ unprovable solar-variability theories, or some other non-empirical claptrap?
It's science, dear boy — measurable, testable, and replicable. And the only reason we of scientific training and practice find a need to defend it is because unscientific folks such as yourself — who in your silliness describe our understanding of scientific results, analyses, and recommendations as a "religion" — are so vociferous in your politicized, unscientific, data-starved attacks.
What do you fear?
Harri, Harri, Harri, Harri — chill, dude, chill. May I buy you a beer?
I'm currently among the 25,000 scientists at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco, and I'm sure I could find a few who could thoroughly and convincingly answer any and all of your scientific questions — and I'd be more than willing to cover the bar tab, m'kay?
Oh, and if you're into fruitcakes, may I suggest Fullstream Brewery's "Fruitcake ... The Beer" from North Carolina? Might chill you out a bit. I'm buyin' ...
Please, sir, just go away. Go away. And, might I humbly request, go away quickly. There are other websites that I do believe at which you might find more comfort and cursor: Breitbart? Infowars? World News Daily? The Daily Caller?
You'll be happier there amongst your science-denying peers, those of the "Don't blind me with facts 'n' data!" ilk. And we'll all be happier when you focus your energies there, seeing as how we won't have to deal with you hateful simplicity anymore, and you won't have to deal with our pointing out such silliness as, "It's obvious the science is wrong because the models are complete bullshit."
Silly, silly man ...
G'bye. Be well. And don't forget to write when you find work ...
@Big John: "Get back to us when the temps start to rise again, okay?"
Hmmm ... here's one dataset in which you might be interested: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Or do you not believe that one simply because it's "from duh gub'mint?" If not, how 'bout http://bit.ly/1ot2Lpu
Still too governmental? Then how 'bout the satellite dataset that climate-science deniers — okay, "contrarians" — seem to prefer: http://bit.ly/2hQksAC
Or what datasets are you talking about?
I'm quite sorry, but you are quite seriously, scientifically, and undeniably quite in error. You assert without evidence.
If you could do me the kind favor of citing peer-reviewed, well-supported, and non-moronic papers supporting your silliness, I'd be more than happy to refute them, one by one.
Quick question: wouldn't it be reasonable to call someone who disputes the reality of evolution a person who "denies" evolution? Would you call someone who disputes the reality of heliocentrism a "denier" of heliocentrism?
The basic — and may I repeat that? thanks: "basic, basic, basic, basic" — and irrefutable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere, surface, and ocean in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, have been well-demonstrated for many decades. Someone who calls that solid physics into question — oh, and not the intense and active squiggling around the margins regarding future effects and considered solutions, which many reasonable scientists still debate — are, quite simply, deniers of irrefutable facts. "Truth," one might even say.
"Deniers" is not a "pejorative" term. It's simply an accurate identification.
Oh, and when you have a free nanosecond, hop aboard some of the right-wing wacko websites and see who really are the "fanatics" who want to burn their enemies "at the stake." It ain't the scientists, kiddo.
"And people say real men are a dying breed. What could possibly give them that idea..."
Ah yes, real men let twits with no understanding of economics, let alone international trade and regulatory subtleties kick them in their employment-chances bollocks without a complaint or a whimper.
"Please, sir, may I have another? I'm a Real Man™!"
@Gene Cash — You are, I can only assume, being facetious when you say "NASA is not willing to fight for it" in regard to funding. NASA has been fighting the good fight for decades now, trying to squeeze pennies, nickels, and dimes out of it recalcitrant Congress – which only become more difficult after the Republicans took control.
Don't blame NASA for underfunding, blame your congressional representatives.
"... the breakup of Arctic ice allows Earth to lose more heat than it does when the ice remains intact."
You are, quite simply and empirically provably, incorrect. Look up "albedo" someday, and learn how an ice-free Arctic absorbs solar radiation rather than reflecting it.
"The Register has always been left leaning..." Damn you, sir, damn you! I had just sipped a fine demi-mouthful of Calvados when I read your counterfactual analysis, a bit of droll hilarity that caused a dram of beautiful Basse-Normandie liquor to leap from my nose onto my keyboard instead of sinuously traversing down my gullet to where my liver awaited it with warm anticipation.
Perhaps I shouldn't indulge in expensive eau de vie de cider while reading The Register's Comments section.
I, an ancient Reggie, must weigh in on your bit of tepid twaddle, Ivan 4. Your "no appreciable temperature rise for more than 18 years" assertion is, I can only assume, based on John Christy's (UAH) manipulation of satellite data-acquisition over the past few decades.
That "manipulation" indentifier, as you'll know if you understand the basics of satellite data, is not an accusation, but merely a simple definition of how satellite multi-wavelength radiance data requires manipulation to transform such data into approximations — with, it must be admitted, wildly wide error bars — of temperature data. Oh, and that satellite radiance-sensing studies only cover the mid to upper troposphere, and not down here on earth where we Puny Humans™ live.
If you've done your research — and I'm assuming you have — you already know that the only other (significant) analyst of the satellite record is Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, California. Check out this reasonable analysis by their VP and Senior Research Scientist Carl Mears, as well as his quote: "I do not expect that the hiatus and model/observation discrepancies are due to a single cause. It is far more likely that they are caused by a combination of factors. Publications, blog posts and media stories that try to pin all the blame on one factor should be viewed with some level of suspicion, whether they are written by climate scientists, journalists, or climate change denialists."
So what it appears that you're attempting to assert is that NOAA, NASA, the Met Office, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, BEST, and any number of other surface-temperature analysts are somehow involved in a global conspiracy to skew their ever-more-accurate conclusions (any scientist who doesn't clarify his conclusions due to new and better analyses of his data is an ass) for political or selfish reasons.
Damn, dude — if that's what you imagine might be even remotely possible, I've got this lovely li'l bridge for sale. For you? Such a deal I could make!
Oh, riiiiiiiight ...
All that climate scientists care not about is not the truth, but only lining their pockets with scads of grant money ...
Have you ever heard about honest inquiry? Have you ever heard of professional integrity?
Trust me, dickhead, not everyone in the world is as corrupt and easily bought as you.
"No it has nothing to do with people"
Sorry, sir, but when you make a statement as utterly ignorant of simple science, statistical analysis, historical data, and — well — the opinions of tens of thousands of folks demonstrably more educated than you are on the topic, perhaps the most cogent response to such a silly assertion might be:
I've been following Reg commenters — let's face it, a somewhat right-leaning bunch — and their climate-change opinions over the past five or six years, and I gotta say that the recent trend is heartening.
Sure, here in the Land O'Reg there's still a comparatively high percentage of know-nothing science-deniers when compared with other supposedly rational website communities, but that percentage has been dropping precipitously in the last year or so.
Perhaps the obvious reality of the physics behind global warming is becoming clear to the smart tech folks who frequent this site? Perhaps the blindingly obvious propaganda of the fossil fuel industry has insulted their sensibilities? Maybe Reg commenters have taken it upon themselves to actually study the data and not merely denialist "Them commies be a-commin'!" screeds?
But the slow-but-steady transformation of my well-loved Reg community from blinded denialists to thoughtful "What the %#€&$! are we going to do about this?" forward-looking planners is heartwarming.
Thanks, guys 'n' gals.
"Green energy policies could take out 90% [of the world's population], making the Greens the greatest killers mankind has ever known."
Okay, I know that I'm responding waaaaay too late to your comment and so you'll likely never see my response, but I gotta drop in and say ....
WTF?!?! My god, man what the #}%#€¥! are you smoking? I've been following the climate-denialist camp for some years now, and your statement is by far the most over-reachingly ludicrous plate of bull-puckey that I've ever had the misfortune to have a clown such as yourself shove in my face.
Either you're a cynically clever satirist or a raving and savagely ill-informed lunatic. I'm hoping for the former and fearing the latter.
Regarding Lewis Page and his contrarian/denialist/skeptical efforts to obfuscate the undeniably demonstrable and indisputably provable rise in global temperatures due to anthropogenic CO2 contributions throughout the past, oh, century-plus, there's only one proper response:
Lewis is, quite simply, wrong — and increasingly shrill as well as repetitive and boring. As might be obvious to anyone without a denialist ax to grind (and to anyone who realizes that those good folks investigating climate change are, in the main, reasonable and responsible human beings who ain't trying to get rich by scrumming for research grants), the overwhelming majority of non-craniorecatal scientists disagree with Page's manic "It ain't true! It ain't true!" cherry-picking and analytical convolutificationalism. (Okay, so that's not a word. Cut me some slack...)
The increasing evidence of record global temperatures makes Lewis' stance — and, unfortunately, the stance of his otherwise technologically sophisticated website, The Register — well, pathetic.
I've learned that to attempt reasonable, data- and research-based arguments here in The Reg's comment forums is rather fruitless, considering that there's a significant percentage of commenters who respond with ludicrously non-scientific, unsupportable, and non-historical statements such as "No one has ever proved that CO2 has an effect on tropospheric and surface temperatures!!" Uh ... well ... no, you're simply wrong. Google Arrhenius, Högbom, Callendar, Suess, Manabe, Wetherald, et al. — that is, if you can take your blinders off long enough to see your keyboard.
Whatever. I've tried to instill some reason regarding AGW, global warming, and climate change into The Register. I've failed. To unforgivably personalize this post for a moment, and to paraphrase that Olympic-level dickhead, Tricky-Dick Nixon, "You won't have Rik to kick around anymore."
G'bye — and thanks for all the Thomson, Mellor, McAllister, Nichols, Clarke, Sharwood, Chirgwin, Williams, and others.
But no thanks to Lewis Page. Let's be objective, analytical, and brutally honest here for a moment, shall we? The man is a maroon, and one who's not only harming the credibility of The Register, but also fueling the abject, blind stupidity — yes, stupidity — that is the majority of climate-change denial. To be clear, I'm not dissing true Judith Curry–level climate-science skepticism that's reasonable, welcome, and fine and dandy. I'm talking pre-decided, brick-minded denial.
Ooops. Let me correct myself. Characterizing Lewis as a "maroon" is an unforgivable ad hominem attack, and I apologize for stooping to that level of childishness. Seriously. Sorry. He is, in many other aspects, a fine man — and a snappy dresser. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. But do realize that his blind and back-argued denialism is not only wrong, but more importantly his use of his bully pulpit is dangerous. He needs to be refuted — I'm just too disgusted to do it anymore.
Be well and enjoy — just don't buy any ocean-front property, m'kay?
Uh, until folks like you who have no %$#@!ing understanding of climate science, physics, radiative forcing, the effect of complex molecules on long-wave radiation, and so on, and so on, and so on become ... hmm ... ah ... how shall I say it? Oh, how 'bout "non-craniorectal?"
C'mon, reasonable discussion about the complex details of climate change/global warming is quite fine and all, but total head-in-the-sand denialism, is well, "risible."
The article states: "One should note that the Met Office report is strongly hedged – its title even ends in a question mark, in the style of headlines-to-which-the-answer-is-no."
I can't resist dipping into my decades of professional journalistic experience to make a small correction to this assertion, as follows: "One should note that the Met Office report is strongly hedged – its title even ends in a question mark, in the style of headlines-to-which-the-answer-is-'Duh!'."
Just a minor correction. Carry on.
What I find quite encouraging about the comment thread to this ludicrously cherry-picked, journalistically ... ahem ... insert your own evaluation here ... article is that the commenting crowd here at El Reg is remarkably better-informed than I have seen in some time about the subtleties of climate science and the distortions flouted by denialist/contrarian/skeptic/whatever folks — and I should know, having attempted to bring some level of climate-science sanity to this otherwise marvelous website during my term there from 2008 to 2014, and during that time was an avid read-every-comment editor.
Bravo, commentards! And, BTW, I'm now proud to have joined your ranks.
@Michael de Podesta: Thank you, sir, for your clarification — and thank you also for your work on this important topic. And do know that there are far, far more of us who, even though we're laymen, have studied the science and understand its physical underpinnings than there are those conspiratorialists who, as you say, "impugn scientists who are just doing their best to get at the truth."
'Preciate it — "Keep calm and study on."
"But not many people will be taking NOAA global surface temperature 'records' very seriously any more ..."
Might you please provide some evidence as to your assertion that "not many people" will trust NOAA data in the future? Surveys? Analyses?
"The 'very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set' this year have seriously damaged its credibility."
Again, your assertion of damaged credibility is neither proven by argument nor supported by verifiable data.
@ Ivan 4: "With climate science they change the data to fit the end result NOT question why the end result doesn't match their ideas."
Y'know, I don't want to put too fine a point upon it, but after attending many a discussion and session of the American Geophysical Union, and after discussing many a climate science topic with many a climate scientist, I simply gotta say — with all due respect, sir — that you are thoroughly and completely full of shit.
Get back to me after you've discussed your childish conspiracy theories with some reputable climate scientists, m'kay? Or, for that matter, with some reputable reporters or analysts.
@ Faux Science Slayer:
My freakin' gawd, sir, but your unsupported blatherings are hilariously risible.
But ... Well ... Ooops... Oh... Sorry... Perhaps I'm simply missing your sly humor, as you craftily slather such memes as "this variable fission force" and "Abiogenic Petroleum production" and "elitist controlled parrot press".
My bad. My mistake. I didn't realize that you're simply an absurdist humorist, and not a serious commenter.
Love the McClellan analogy. Well-played, sir, well-played.
It's not about certainty or uncertainty, it's about intelligent, well-balanced, look-at-the-risks, bottom-line-oriented risk management, eh?
My money's on AGW. I may be wrong (thought I doubt it), but the odds are well in my favor — and if I'm right, well, I'm certainly glad that the globe's movers 'n' shakers understand risk-management statistics and theory, and are working to craft policies in light of such statistical imperatives, as well.
Oh ... wait ...
Never mind ...
I couldn't agree with you more about Lewis' well-analyzed insights into the UK's ludicrous carrier expenditures (and I'd love to hear his thoughts on my country's F-35 insanity), but his climate-science reporting is reliably reverse-engineered as he consistently works to pick denialist dogma out of any pile of cherries that honest scientists uncover.
Consistency in defending a predetermined opinion is often demonstrably more important to a settled-in-his-ways dogmatist than is sober analysis as performed by an honest, objective scientist, might you agree? Or do you believe that climate scientists are dishonest?
Oh, and on a less-important side note — and hopefully not seeming to be too defensive — what science do you assert that I don't understand, and to which "poorly argued alarmist climate posts" of mine might you be referring?
C'mon, okay, fair is fair, y'know?
You write "... then there's the name-calling: 'denialists', really?"
But before that, you write, "... the alarmists are left trying to ..."
Not a big deal, not a big deal at all, of course — but how 'bout a level rhetorical playing field?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019