bascule

I use Rembrandt, thanks

Opposition like... ...in the event there's a data point marginally above the trend line? OMFG A GLITCH! or not...

The entire scientific mentality is built around the idea that the present scientifically accepted answer is falsifiable and that other answers always remain in the realm of possiblity. However, tolerance of alternative opinions is contingent upon their merit. Are other answers more consistent with evidence than the scientifically accepted answer? The reason the community around here generally shuts down dissention is that it has no scientific merit. Now, granted, there are many individuals leveraging claims which do have merit and should be examined in the context of present evidence. However, you have to keep in mind that these same arguments have been batted around back and forth in the peer review process ad infinitum before they reach laymen in the general public. That said, such arguments do deserve examination and do give pause. But they're the exception to the rule in global warming discussions around here. Most arguments against the present consensus are completely without scientific merit, and that includes all the ones you just leveraged. To go beyond arguments against the present scientific theory, there's the failure of opponents of the theory to formulate their own explanation which can be tested within a model and can successfully reconstruct the historical climate. As soon as someone is able to do this, then great! We have a real scientific debate on our hands as to which model is valid. However, as far as climate science is concerned today, there's one game in town. You're either for the only workable model or you're against it. If you're against it, be prepared for your arguments to be labeled as ludicrous unless you have a sound, scientific position on which you're opposing it. That's certainly possible, and there are climate scientists who have done it successfully. They're in a fractional minority of opponents of the scientific consensus. Are you accusing climate scientists of static analysis? Newsflash: the standard model is built on statistical evidence. Why all the opposition to climate science and not to quantum mechanics?

The thing about "the media" is they're also doing a great job of making much ado about nothing... If you're saying that "the media" help Obama recover from media-sensationalized gaffes, then yes, you're correct... but they're ultimately solving a problem of their own invention.

Yep, Martin definitely linked me that same paper, and I tried to read it, and there were pictures!!!, but it's still beyond my understanding Maybe I'll try again...

I think his point was that people eventually look upon their economic situation is hopeless and thus choose politicians based on comparatively petty social issues rather than looking for politicians who might actually improve their quality of life.

IPCC AR4 SPM says: with "very likely" footnoted as meaning: I don't know what you want to imply by "stopped short", but the IPCC says they're over 90% certain humans are primarily to blame for recent warming, which they attribute to observed increases in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Hence why it's a theory and not a proof... proper scientific investigation will provide causal explanations within a certain degree of uncertainty. I think generally this thread has been assessing the science of the movie, not Gore's policy recommendations. I suppose when the discussion at hand is something like An Inconvenient Truth, policy certainly plays into it, but if it's a policy discussion you're seeking, I think it should happen in Politics. The only workable theory to date includes the radiative forcing of anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the primary one affecting the climate system. No one has managed produce a model which can successfully reconstruct the climate of the past century without a boost from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Alternative explanations (e.g. natural forcings dominate the warming trend) are stuck at the hypothesis stage and are not supported by present evidence, experimentation, and/or modeling. We do not fully understand quantum field theory, but it's still the best scientific explanation available. There's no reason to doubt it just because it isn't fully understood.

Don't see a thread for this yet, so... Yeah, much ado about Obama calling middle Americans a bunch of gun toting bible thumping bigots, or something. What's the deal? Everything he says is taken painfully out of context and blown completely out of proportion. Meanwhile McCain and Hillary are trying to make it out like they're actually in touch with Joe Blow. Is it me, or is Obama just speaking his mind in a way unbecoming of a canonical politician?

I think you have something to say but are afraid of people pointing out why it's wrong. I think you should go ahead and say it. I doubt you'll find anyone here saying "you can't say that" so much as you'll find people pointing out what's wrong. The only person around here who seems to be pushing the "you can't say that" line is you.

How to turn a sphere inside out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6626464599825291409

Try HoTMetaL

What about water vulnerability? Hundreds of millions of people are going to lose access to safe drinking water, in addition to the billion plus people who already lack it. Oh really: "Global warming" refers to the multi-decadal trend in global average surface temperatures. The regional effects are varied, and can include things like colder winters. Looking at effects in a specific region say nothing about the effects globally. For example, heating is disproportionately strong in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere. *facepalm*

You don't have to believe Al Gore. Believe the scientists whose research he's presenting. Whether or not he's a hypocrite is irrelevant to the correctness of that information (i.e. ad hominem) What would living in Utah have anything to do with it? I mean, besides the systemic anti-scientific viewpoints that pervade the residents of Utah... Solar forcings are most certainly considered by scientists in climate reconstructions: Also WTF bagpipes?

Vista boot-up time was terrible on my MacBook, well over a minute compared to the ~30s that it takes Leopard to boot.

I'm sure PZ Myers would also file Way of the Master under humor. And if you haven't caught my drift, I'm insinuating he filed it under humor for, shall we say, MST3K value, i.e. it's a thing of ridicule to such an extent that it becomes hilarious.

By 2020 there will be nearly 2 billion humans without access to safe drinking water. Does that count as an apocalyptic future?

I ascribe to functionalism, and by that, HAL is an adequate "duck type" of consciousness (to borrow a term from dynamic programming, and IA). My opinion is a computer simulation of a human (at the cellular/molecular level) would be every bit as conscious as a real human. Just how conscious arbitrary computer program X is depends on what algorithm program X is using. THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR! PHEER!

Corn ethanol is crap, but I have great hopes for algae-based biofuels.

That's a prudent suggestion in general

Google gets their pick of apps already built on their infrastructure which are also locked in to the Google infrastructure? Awesome! It's win-win for Google. On the plus side of users of the platform, hopefully Google sees enough value in promoting development on their platform that they will price the thing ludicrously cheap.

As much as I'd like to agree with this guy (who, judging by his attire, is a fellow Sports Racer) his argument is rooted in a logical fallacy: namely a false dichotomy. He examines only the absolute worst extremes in making his decision making, when in fact there's a continuum of possibilities between either endpoint and the probability curve favors something closer to the middle, with the extremes being rather unlikely. By that same reasoning, we shouldn't build particle accelerators, because scientists may accidentally create a black hole that destroys the entire Earth! We don't want to destroy the Earth, do we? I think the end result of this reasoning would be following whoever can dream up the worst nightmare scenario. In the end that doesn't matter nearly as much as how likely the particular scenario actually is.

It's the only theory that, when tested in a model, successfully reconstructs the historical record. So... yes.

These radiative forcings:

So how's about Bush insisting we pardon the telcos for their crimes? With an ex post facto law, as it were... that's a great reason to veto!

Field theories (at least in within my limited ability to comprehend them) operate on space as if it were continuous. The standard model (I think) goes into this category. A new group of theories models space as a discrete structure in the form of an evolving set of relationships. These structures take the form of spin networks or spin foam. Loop quantum gravity goes into this category. BUT! As I understand it, a new class of theories has sprung up modeling space as something between these two extremes. I'm not really sure where to classify these approaches in my head, but they've been described as modeling space as something like a fractal. If the above is correct, I don't know what theories fit into that category. I'm sure Martin has told me before. Can someone name some of them, or inform me I'm full of crap?