* Posts by fmaxwell

25 posts • joined 9 Dec 2012

Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming


Science for Non Scientists...

"If we go back 50 years, the consensus among scientists was that Continental Drift, Plate Techtonics, whatever you like to call it were a myth. "

Stop lying. No scientists ever referred to it as a "myth."

That's the difference between you and scientists: They revise their beliefs based on scientific research and evidence.

"Go back even further, and the consensus was that the World was flat, and if you went West far enough, you'd fall off the edge."

Those were your people who believed that: Primitives who based their beliefs not on science but, rather, on what made them feel good.

The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC). The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as the "Myth of the Flat Earth." In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.

So there was never a time in which scientists believed that the Earth was flat.

So are you rejecting modern scientific consensus that the Earth is spherical in much the same way that you seem ready to reject modern scientific consensus that AGW is a real threat?

"And they had good science to prove it, too."

Again, your ignorance of science is showing. Early skepticism revolved around a lack of detailed evidence and a force sufficient to drive the movement. Once the evidence was produced and the explanation of the force developed, scientists quickly accepted the theory of Plate Tectonics. Much as they have accepted the theory of AGW based on the evidence and the explanation for the mechanisms behind it.


Re: @fmaxwell

"So since the model says it is so is it now fact? Or do we need real world data to see if I can actually fire a gun accurately and under fire?"

Really? You're going to be that much of an ass in your dismissal of the scientific work by thousands of climatologists all over the world?

The problem with your "analogy" is that the mathematical models related to global warming are based on scientific fact while yours is based on fantasy. There is no doubt, at all, that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to global warming and that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at an alarming rate. All that scientists are doing now is fine-tuning the models to show how much warming will result.


Re: Proof?

"The scientific consensus held that the sun orbited the earth, ulcers were caused by excess stomach acid, plate tectonics was a silly myth and that piltdown man was the genuine article."

That's the difference between scientists and you: They are willing to revise their beliefs based on evidence, observations, and data. You, on the other hand, have chosen to believe something -- regardless of evidence, observations, and data.


No, they don't "examine authority." They examine the views of the scientists who have studied this subject -- those most able to come to an informed position on the subject. Rejecting the views of these scientists is akin to rejecting the views of the medical community about cigarette smoking.

Don't take a grade-school view of science. It's not all about doing experiments. Much of science is about mathematical predictions and models. Stephen Hawking isn't going to be able to "demonstrate" his theories on time and space, but it doesn't mean they are "dodgy."

AGW is not just based on statistics. It's based on the measured CO2 levels in the atmosphere and mathematical models of how an increase in CO2 leads to higher global temperatures. The problem with waiting for "proof" of AGW is that it's like trying to prove a gun is loaded by putting it to your head and pulling the trigger.


Re: "Debating WITH IDIOTS doesn't get us very far" - fmaxwell

In response to your out-of-context quote, debate among qualified scientists is valuable. Debating with ignorant AGW deniers on the Internet is not. You have nothing to add to a scientific discussion. You don't understand climatology, the scientific method, or how peer-reviewed journals work (and how they filter out the noise from know-nothings like yourself).

Your beliefs about climate change have nothing to do with the science behind it. Your beliefs are based on your political leanings and/or what you want to believe. You choose to bury your head in the sand, posting plagiarized writings from uneducated, unqualified, vocational school attendees. You don't even care that what you plagiarized has already been debunked as grossly logically flawed. So climatologists would just be wasting precious time debating with you.

But here's a fact for you, one that you really don't want to face up to:

Of the papers that took a position on AGW: 3,986 endorse it and only 78 reject it.


Re: Well (@fmaxwell)

@Stephen Jones: "Evidence?

Oh, wait. You haven't got any."

Oh, wait. I've got plenty of evidence:






But you don't want to read the truth because it doesn't fit in well with the fiction that you and your other anti-science right-wing nuts want to believe.

From Wikipedia (you're free to change it if you think it's incorrect):

In 2013, The Guardian revealed that two trusts, the 'DonorsTrust' and the 'Donors Capital Fund', operating out of a house in the suburbs of Washington DC, have bankrolled 102 think tanks and activist groups to the tune of $118m between 2002 and 2010. The conservative donors to these trusts are said to represent a wide range of opinion on the American right who have found common ground in opposing cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. They ensure their anonymity by funnelling the funds through the trusts, and the money flowed into "Washington thinktanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore," the report said. The stream of cash was used to fund a conservative backlash against Barack Obama's environmental initiatives and to wreck any chance of Congress taking action on climate change. The money funded a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a 'wedge issue' that benefits the hardcore right. Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has researched other networks of ultra-right donors, said, "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg."

"It ensures wholesale energy prices far higher than they would be in a competitive market."

Much as tobacco taxes increase the cost of cigarettes. I guess you feel that's a problem, too, since it reduces another harmful human activity.

Given the massive costs associated with global warming, much of it borne by governments, it seems like a good idea to me. I don't want you to be able to afford to drive a car that gets poor gas mileage. I want it to have such a horrible impact on your standard of living that you are forced to buy a fuel-efficient, lower-pollution car that you don't want.

P.S. Thank for labeling your posts "FAIL," but it's really not necessary. Just reading them makes the FAIL obvious.


Re: "Debating doesn't get us very far" - fmaxwell

"You have now made several posts in response to the analysis of Cook's methodology - without addressing the methodology ONCE?"

Are you referring to the post that was deleted, either by the author out of embarrassment or by The Register because it was blatant plagiarism?

Cook's paper was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If legitimate scientists have dissenting views, they can publish them. I'm not wasting my time analyzing something plagiarized from some unqualified, intellectually inferior AGW denier who went to the ITT Technical Institute.

But if you insist on seeing Cook's methodology addressed and Shollenberger's claims destroyed, go here:


Bart Verheggen writes:

"Including the “no position” category into the denominator (as some people seem to be doing) to arrive at a much smaller percentage endorsement makes about as much sense as including all atmospheric science articles in the denominator too, or even all physics articles: it is to be expected that many papers do not state a position on this particular issue. These should not be included as a reference against which to compare the number of endorsement papers. Another example of an apples to oranges comparison is Brandon Shollenberger comparing the number of explicit and quantified endorsements to the sum of explicit and implicit rejections."

". And the evidence is most of the papers "analysed" were neutral, they were outside Categories 1 and 3. More papers refuted manmade global warming than supported it."

How does a paper which does not take a position on AGW 'refute' it? See above. That you could be so stupid is incredible.


Re: @fmaxwell

"@fmaxwell: Your intolerence of evidence and rational argument is plain for everyone to see."

You didn't provide "evidence." You just plagiarized.

"Global warming now consists of a rump of angry activists, like you."

No, global warming is fact, despite your refusal to believe it. I'm angry because morons like you are standing in the way of progress towards addressing this issue.

"That says it all, really. I've posted the evidence of Cook's methodology. The evidence does not support the "97 per cent" conclusion."

No, you plagiarized a misrepresentation of the methodology.


Re: Well

"ooh, er - that told 'em, didn't it?"

No, what followed did.

"P.S. Anyone seen that Global Warming thingey recently?

(Thought not - bit chilly here actually )"

You're too stupid to know the difference between local weather and global climate? Christ!

Thumb Up

Re: Well (@fmaxwell)

@Nick Collingridge: Thank you for that rational response to AJ MacLeod. I share your frustration at the level of irrationality displayed by the deniers.

The energy lobby has (or "have" for the UK readers) poured massive amounts of money into campaigns designed to undermine public confidence in scientific research and opinion on climate change. Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires gave almost $120 million U.S. dollars to over 100 anti-AGW groups for the purpose of casting doubt on the science behind AGW climate change. These groups have successfully convinced a large segment of the population that believing in AGW makes you a "liberal" and that conservatives know that AGW is some kind of liberal plot.

They've attacked the integrity of scientists who devote their lives to scientific truth to the point where online rubes believe that scientists are raking in money by falsifying research in order to pay for their mansions, Ferraris, and private jets. It's disgusting.


Re: Well (@fmaxwell)

@AJ MacLeod: "Just as well you've no vested interest in keeping up the panic levels then.."

No, I don't have a "vested interest in keeping up the panic levels." I am working on a series of satellites that have nothing to do with climate research and don't anticipate working on another climate research satellite prior to my retirement.

"nice scientific debating method, too. Just shut up. Doesn't get us very far, does it?"

Debating doesn't get us very far. These non-scientific online debates are a tool used by the AGW deniers to make the public believe, incorrectly, that there is a vast undercurrent of climatologists who don't believe that AGW is real and significant. That leads to politicians being willing to reduce, delay, and water-down legislation and treaties intended to reduce our carbon footprint.

Someone who plagiarizes the work of 20-something ITT Technical Institute attendee to refute climate change research doesn't rise to the level of being part of a scientific debate.


Re: Well

Just shut up.

I'm sick of right-wing tools like you posting your plagiarized bull***t criticisms of every study that supports the theory of AGW. Your post was plagiarized from "On the Consensus" by fanatical AGW denier Brandon Shollenberger, a 20-something who attended the ITT Technical Institute in Tulsa, OK -- the kind of school that states, on it's web site "it is unlikely that any credits earned at an ITT Technical Institute will be transferable to or accepted by any institution other than an ITT Technical Institute."

You remind me of the "scientists" at the "Tobacco Institute" that spent decades trying to undermine and challenge every study that linked cigarette smoking to cancer. The difference is that your kind is far more dangerous -- I can decide not to smoke and the chances that I'll get lung cancer are greatly reduced, but if you and the rest of the lunatic-fringe AGW deniers convince enough uneducated rubes that AGW is not real, there's nothing that I, individually, can do to avoid the consequences.

While you've been prowling the Internet looking for AGW articles to deny, I was helping to build and test two different satellites for climate change research. So do not reply. Your opinion on AGW is about as important and informed as Justin Bieber's opinion on string theory.


Re: Totally Meaningless Study

When 97% of the scientists believe in a scientific theory, that's a little different than a bunch of uneducated, religious fucktards believing something, isn't it?

eBay chief Donahoe sees his package nearly double in size


So the e-mail was true...


Apparently, the penis enlargement pills actually work.

Global warming fingered as Superstorm Sandy supersizer


Please stop posting outdated BS as current (re. Gore's house)

Ignoring your absurd AGW denial comments, I'll take you apart on your claims about Gore's home being a "huge polluter."

Al Gore completed numerous improvements in 2007, including installation of solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs to make the home more energy efficient. "Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design. Bet you didn't want people to know about that, did you? So you linked to something that was written before the improvements had been made.

By your logic, pedophilia is not a problem, because several vocal opponents of it were found to be pedophiles themselves. For example, U.S. congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) crusaded for tough laws against those who used the Internet for sexual exploitation of children. Then it was discovered that the congressman used the Internet to engage in "cybersex" and send explicit images to underage boys. So, by your logic, you shouldn't stop sexually preying on children because Mark Foley, a vocal opponent of child predators, was found to a child predator himself.

Google to scan Chrome extensions, bans auto-install


"Thankfully I don't use it."

Sadly for the rest of us, you do use a browser.

Rampaging gnu crashes Microsoft Store, hands out literature


Re: How about if GNU opens its own mall stores?

"I'm betting that the laptop you're referring to is an HP G62 laptop or similar. My HP laptop certainly doesn't like linux quite as much as Windows did, but here's the deal :

Your laptop needs a BIOS fix in order to get the fans and sensors running properly. HP, more than likely, will not provide such a fix, as the laptop was shipped with an HP-Specific OEM version of Windows, which contains fixes for the fan problems."

Thanks for the insight, but I'm afraid we have different series of laptops. MIne's a ZE4100. I eventually found a Linux distro that worked right and I know that bone-stock retail versions of Windows XP had no problems with the fans.

I initially bought the machine to use at customer sites but the fans were so loud when they kicked on (under Windows) that I would get dirty looks from people trying to present and participate in the meetings. Horrible, horrible machine and it really makes me appreciate the efforts that Apple puts into engineering quiet cooling into their laptops. Hell, even the Dell laptops were quiet by comparison, and that's just sad.


Re: A little fed up with all the Linux bashing

Linux, especially Ubuntu, is great -- until something goes wrong. Then it can turn into a bloody nightmare.

I had a case where I had to call Red Hat regarding an X-Windows problem. It was solved with a command line that was about 120 characters long and looked a lot like old-school modem line noise. We've got multiple different flavors of Linux boxes at work and some of the most brilliant engineers you're likely to meet (we build satellites, space probes, and rockets) and even they, with degrees from schools like MIT, find themselves perplexed. One of them recently set up dual monitors on a set of hardened RHEL machines and we can't drag windows or icons between monitors. He swears he did exactly what he did not the standard (not hardened) RHEL boxes and got totally different results.

Lest you accuse me of being a Microsoft fanboy, I hate Microsoft and switched several years ago to Macs (after running Microsoft OSs since they bought Seattle Computer Products' SCP-DOS, renamed it MS-DOS and PC-DOS). I chose Mac because of the superior build quality and for the OS with the BSD underpinnings. No regrets.


Re: How about if GNU opens its own mall stores?

"Wow, don't wanna destroy all the fun you're having with MS, OSX et al on your HP machine that doesn't seem to like Linux."

It's really not that much fun -- it's just an old laptop sitting in front of the toilet in the downstairs half-bathroom.

"So yes, Microsoft and their OEMs need to spend more time making Windows work right without a bunch of post-install bit-twiddling Remember that consumer has to pay for that crap."

Your experience is out of the ordinary and, as others have shown here, mine with Linux is anything but. If your experience was even remotely common, Microsoft's share of the desktop would be as tiny as Linux's. Probably even smaller, since Linux costs nothing and, as you point out, Microsoft gets a handsome price for their OS.


Re: Good effort but misdirected

"But now Microsoft is trying to bring an iPhone-style appstore monopoly to the desktop, complete with content restrictions and all that crap."

Yeah, all that "crap" like trying to prevent users from getting infected with malware.

Companies can't win. If some dumbass download a trojan horse from a Russian "hacker" site, types the admin password and installs it, it's seen as a sign that the OS is horribly insecure. But if the company tries to create a marketplace where there is some assurance to users that the apps they install are safe, then it's an attempt to create some kind of Orwellian, though-control, monopoly.


How about if GNU opens its own mall stores?

"According to FSF campaigns manager Zak Rogoff, the fact that the demonstrators were escorted off only underscores the FSF's message"

No, it underscores the message that the half-dressed furries from FSF were trespassing.

Grow the f*** up! The FSF isn't winning over consumers by acting like asses in a Microsoft store and being escorted off the premises. Instead, the shoppers there are thinking about what an immature bunch of jerks the FSF people are.

As others have said, they need to spend more time making Linux work right without a bunch of post-install bit-twiddling. I went through multiple distros on my AMD-based HP laptop (not my main machine) and none of them worked right. Most of them ran the fans full-speed, ignoring the temperature sensors. Others would not see the USB WiFi dongle. One saw the dongle but would not work with my WPA 2 network (that works fine with OS X, Windows, and iOS devices). I finally had to switch to a different dongle even though the one that Linux could not get to work on WPA2 worked fine when Windows XP was on the laptop.

And I don't give a rat's ass if Linux worked fine for you on 28 different computers. It didn't work fine for me on a mainstream system that ran fine with multiple different Windows installs. Others report similar problems. So it needs further development before it is ready to be a mainstream desktop OS. This isn't an opinion or an invitation to debate. I don't have time to waste on zealots who refuse to acknowledge reality: Man-made global warming is real, creationism is a fantasy, and Linux is not ready for prime time. Stop attacking everyone who criticizes the state of the Linux universe and fix Linux if you want people to use it.

Grinchy Google to shut down another batch of services


Re: Welcome to "cloud computing"

danieltharris: "Even a paid for service could disappear over night."

Agreed, but at least if the company was still in business, you would have some legal recourse. When you've paid nothing to Google, you're hard-pressed to make a legal case that they breached a contract.


Welcome to "cloud computing"

I warned people about free "cloud" apps and how they could go away at any time. But most would not listen. No, I was old-fashioned because I didn't embrace a model where some company that owed me nothing controlled access to my data and applications, where an Internet outage could leave me unable to access critical data.

So, just to be clear, relying on free cloud computing services, apps, and storage for anything important to you is stupid.

Note: This is not an invitation to debate this topic with me. I'm posting to educate people, not argue with those who lack the knowledge, experience, or reasoning skills to recognize that what I said is completely correct.

Stallman: Ubuntu spyware makes it JUST AS BAD as Windows


That's what happens when there's no viable, legitimate revenue stream

User's want a polished, professional, supported Linux but don't want to pay for it. There's not a big revenue stream to be had from selling CDs when people can download the distro for free over broadband. Most users are unwilling to pay enough for support to make that a viable model for a company producing a Linux Distro, and the small percentage who are willing to pay have already bought contracts with RedHat. The other suggested avenues for profiting on desktop Linux distributions are even sillier than the ones mentioned above.

Canononical has been bankrolled by Mark Shuttleworth since 2004 and it still has yet to turn a profit. What's the business model, people?

As far as politics and values go, Stallman and I are very similar, so this is not some right-wing condemnation of liberal ideals. It's just a recognition of the ugly truth: Linux is dying on the vine largely because of the lack of a viable business model for a major company producing a distribution. That Apple and Microsoft have drastically reduced the price of their operating system offerings is not helping the Linux market, either. Canononical is fighting for a slice of a very small pie, so how do they turn a profit?


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020