Posts by Baying Lynch Mob 32 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Jun 2009
Did you even read the linked article? You only have to get to the fourth paragraph to see that it uses real results (recorded from satellites) to show that CO_2 (along with other gases) stops radiation from escaping.
Is that evidence not hard enough for you? If you're going to complain that there's no evidence for the effect on the global climate as a whole, then you should remember that nobody has a spare set of planets on which to run controlled experiments of the sort that you'd get with eg. drug trials.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The "not during my watch" attitude means that as long as you *look* like you're doing the right thing for the long term, you can make it through the next election. Fixing climate change is going to involve some unpopular choices, and nobody wants to be the group that has to impose these on the voters - especially when a scary amount of the voters think it's all a hoax.
And once you're fining or taxing people for doing something bad or wrong, it becomes a source of income, so there's less of an incentive to stop them from doing it.
Also, Copenhagen was severely bogged down by quibbling over small print. It's a wonder the conflict of interest problem was even reached.
``Just read the report. It makes a very interesting reading''
Could you provide a translation for the non-Russian speakers? Or cut to the important bit - where's the link to the data that's apparently been excluded from all the publically available sets listed on http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ ?
A lot of froth over very little content, here. As the article doesn't even include a link to the interview in question (only to another site busy ripping Schmidt to shreds), some more context and less paraphrasing would have helped. Without the spin, the message I'd take home from the first quotation is: if you're doing something that other people think to be wrong, then your first priority shouldn't always be to prevent them from knowing you're doing it - you should also consider *why* they think it's wrong.
``But the bigger news may be that Schmidt has actually admitted there are cases where the search giant is forced to release your personal data.''
Why are commenters so pissed off with Google over this bit of news? Note the word "forced" - it's a problem with the privacy-destroying laws that our elected representatives keep making, and not with the companies that are complying (willingly or otherwise) with them.
``What has happened is that these PC morons have decided that everything, no matter what, is a sensitive issue and needs to removed before someone is offended!''
What has probably happened is that somewhere down the line there's an incomplete understanding of the set of considerations that you dismiss as "Political Correctness": An admin has grasped that there are *some* contexts in which saying "queer", or one of several other words, is inappropriate, and has either applied a ban on it across the board regardless of context, or written a filter that does the same.
So it's not necessarily idiocy - it could be laziness, or (more likely) lack of time to do the job properly.
Why is there always somebody who thinks "local" is nothing to worry about if the machine is /physically/ secured?
It doesn't mean that you have to be sitting in front of the machine. It only means that you have to have logged in somehow - this can be a malicious user on a multiuser system, someone using a weak or sniffed password, or an attacker who has exploited something else (most often a poorly-written PHP script running on the webserver) to get shell access.
I agree that it's "not as simple as that" - the grants go to the department, not scientists' pockets, and there are currently investments going into it for political reasons. But there are also significant commercial interests in promoting the "nothing to worry about, keep consuming our energy" line, while there aren't so many people who stand to gain from us all using *less* energy. (Except for the global cabal of loft insulators.)
``If putting the odd 'climate change' reference in research proposals is more likely to get the grant approved, many of the proposers may choose to do it rather than loosing their funding and their post.''
"putting the odd 'climate change' reference" in a proposal does not indicate allegiance to either side of the debate. There's nothing to stop a sceptic from using the grant to fund research and, as a result, finding that sitting on our collective arses is the right course of action - the fact that there aren't any papers to that effect (that haven't been shown to be full of holes) might just be to do with there being no science behind that position.
`Global warming is also, of course, a good way to keep the grants rolling in;'
If you think scientists are in it for the research grants, then I strongly suspect you're not a scientist who's doing any research. If you wanted to make a profit, you'd go into a different career.
`that's why very few scientists will speak out against the group-think, there's no money in it.'
No, the reason scientists don't speak against it is because they agree with it. On the other hand, if you're a denialist lobby group, you can get money from eg. Exxon: http://qurl.com/qtjfv
So you think that previous temperature fluctuations mean that current ones aren't a problem? Congratulations! You get to be today's recipient of a clue!
Were you thinking of the Holocene Climatic Optimum? Same effect but different causes: http://qurl.com/ysqrc
Or possibly the Medieval Warm Period? Not as warm as it is now: http://qurl.com/m4ydk
I won't be needing the coat for a while yet, thanks.
@AC 09:45
``So NASA believes one kooky theory but not the other - could it be there's profit to be made out of the more 'believable' one?''
Or perhaps it could be that the "unbelievable" theory is based entirely on mythology with no evidence at all, while the "believable" one is backed up by real-world measurements and observations?
``Don't display pictures of the couple in question, they're an affront to my human rights to not heave thinking about the pair of them "at it".''
Yes, you shouldn't even have to consider that people you don't find attractive might have sex. Remember that when you're about to introduce someone to your parents.
``On October 22, he wrote a proof of concept attack for the local root exploit.''
That's more than four months *after* the patch that fixed it (setting mmap_min_addr to non-zero) was committed to the kernel:
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.0/01475.html
I tire of the warnings about how close we're getting to Nineteen Eighty Four; an organisation for the "dissemination of truth" suggests they're taking the joke and running with it.
Oh well, from now on, whenever I encounter someone being Wrong on the Internet, I can accuse them of working for SOCOM.
To those asking what harm a cyclist jumping a red light (or slipping by on the pavement) does...
Yes, it does piss me off when I'm unable to overtake the cyclist/s in front of me, slowing me down so that I miss the green light, then they ignore the red, leaving me worse off than if they hadn't been there. But that's not the serious problem.
It maintains the stereotype, spouted abundantly above, that cyclists don't care about the highway code. It gives motorists a reason to ignore the Advanced Stopped Lines (those ones with picture of bicycles... does that look like *your* vehicle, sir?). It can even cause some people to think they know better than the traffic lights - I've had a near miss with one idiot who did that. A significant feature of the highway code is that, even if it's not optimal or convenient in all circumstances, if everybody follows every rule of it, fatal accidents don't happen.
And for those saying the cyclists should stick to the cycle lanes that the councils have squandered all that tax on - a lot of cycle lanes aren't simply inconvenient, they're actually more dangerous than the roads.
Yes, the roads currently suck, leading to frustration all round. Don't decide that the laws are for other people, and don't take it out on a whole class of road users that happens to exclude you. Write to your elected representatives.
``I also have to agree with his opinion of cyclists. Tossers, every last one of them.''
No, he only said he hates the ones who drink herbal tea and vote for Harriet Harman. The rest of us are alright (unless we're cycling four-abreast round his neighbourhood in Spiderman cossies).
@Fading:
Your argument looks like you're in favour of believing whatever justifies making the least effort. What "benefits" of global warming? (Being able to sit around in shorts and t-shirt more often than needing a coat isn't a huge benefit.) What "flaws" in the models? (The existence of fiction about bad stuff happening doesn't stop bad stuff happening in real life.)
``Show me some convincing evidence that
1 - there is a problem''
Dying coral reefs? The breakup of the Wilkins ice shelf?
``(e.g. death rates > birthrates) ''
Claiming that things must be OK because the population keeps growing is an incredibly simplistic, short-sighted view. The population has been growing since, um, the first human, and a potential (and potentially avoidable) catastrophe just round the corner won't be reflected in *current* birth and death rates. Are you saying that nothing needs to be done until people start dying?
``2 - that the cause has been indentified scientifically using the scientific method''
"The scientific method" involves coming up with a hypothesis based on observations, and testing it - you can reject the hypothesis when you find something that contradicts it. Have you observed something, missed by much of the scientific community, that casts doubts on the hypotheses that CO[2] (i) is a greenhouse gas and (ii) results from burning fossil fuels?
``3. the "cure" can be shown to be effective without causing more damage than the problem.''
This is the difficult bit. There aren't even any remedial actions, let alone "cures", that don't cause some damage to individuals' comfort, convenience or bank balance. That's why discussions of any new potential solutions, such as geoengineering, are important.
``just look at the numbers''
What numbers would those be? The only number you've provided is the current global population, and all that proves is that people are still breeding, regardless of how capable either the parents or the planet are of sustaining the offspring.
The available statistics about human mortality rates due to extreme hot vs cold weather aren't very detailed or conclusive - arguers from both sides have used carefully selected datasets that give a hint of favour to their own viewpoint. The human body's ability to withstand higher temperatures isn't the issue here - for an overview of some other effects of small changes in temperature, I suggest you glance at this summary of Mark Lynas' "Six Degrees": http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
``The fault lies with the music/film industry not getting its act together with an effective DRM system.''
There's no such thing. If it plays, it can be circumvented, initially through the analog hole and later by a determined hacker (who can then simplify the procedure for the masses). Outlawing the circumvention of DRM is an even worse solution (even though it's already in place) than this new proposal - at least the new one is attempting to punish the actual infringers.
Why are we comparing the outcome of this case to what could happen in McKinnon's? One involves hacking in order to defraud people to the tune of millions. The other involves hacking during a futile search for information about UFOs. That's a huge difference that should have more effect on the outcome than the mental state of the accused has.
I think the horse bolted long ago with regards to the Comments area on youtube. Unless they're going to expand the purpose of the "report as spam" button to cover blatant abuse, and employ a whole load more moderators, the current culture is geared too much towards deliberately offensive idiocy (mixed with all-out trolling) for this policy to make a dent.
``we encourage the advertising community to apply good judgement and use these tools responsibly,''
That's a nice idea, but they're advertisers, and they'll do whatever they can get away with if it maximizes profits. If there's no legal stick to beat them with for distorting the truth, why's it in their interests to police themselves and behave responsibly?
Adobe are right that specifically banning "airbrushing" (I can't find the MP's exact wording from the small amount summarised in the Reg/Grauniad articles) doesn't address all the different kinds of image manipulation - but that doesn't mean that leaving things as they are is the right course of action either.
OK, I'll try to tone things down - I'm used to having this discussion in unmoderated groups. I'll even use a pseudonym, if that helps people focus or somehow makes my points more valid than those coming from AC.
I made the comparison with queerbashing after spotting all of the following unhelpful techniques, which can be seen in many an online debate about gay rights:
* Assert that heterosexuality is the norm, and that people who "choose" to be bi-/homosexual don't deserve fair representation
* After being reminded that homosexuality occurs naturally, compare it to bestiality/paedophilia
* Defensively mention having gay friend/s
This has now been joined by...
* Enquire about the sexuality of those who disagree
But to get back to the topic...
''we are talking about KIDS here. you know little people who couldnt give a shit about girlfriends/boyfriends. to be honest its drivel like disney that make all little girls think they will marry some rich prince and never work again''
This is on the mark. The problem with those kids' films isn't the absence of same-sex relationships, it's the presence of (frequently gender-stereotyping) straight ones. I also agree with much of the comment about Wall-E - that was after the range covered by this study, and could be a sign of improvement in this area.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
