bascule

Reduced it two 2 of the years in the previous decade being in the top 10 as you claimed? Wrong. He was never sued. The FOIA request was not for his data, it was for internal department email. The FOIA request was not for his code or data but for internal department email. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8490646.stm Israel has revealed it has reprimanded two top army officers for authorising an artillery attack which hit a UN compound in Gaza last year. In the attack on 15 January 2009 the compound was set ablaze by white phosphorus shells. The admission is contained in the Israeli response to the UN's Goldstone report, which concluded both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes. Photo of said attack can be found in the first post of this thread. To quote Colbert... I CALLED IT!!!

How exactly does it do that? "What we are trying to do here is explain not the overall multi-decadal trend, but the zigs and zags in that trend," Solomon says. "I think it's too early to know how they all play out." By the admission of the paper's own authors this paper is not about the overall trend in GMST. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This paper exposes the myth of Newtonian Mechanics and how it's fundamentally flawed: http://www.bartleby.com/173/

They're scientists, but they're scientists indulging in philosophy to make scientifically indefensible arguments. In my mind this sort of thing doesn't end well. Penrose and Hammeroff bent over backwards inventing a hypothesis for a quantum mechanical "pineal gland" that could serve as the back door to consciousness, all as part of an overall philosophical conjecture that consciousness is fundamentally non-computable. Penrose's credentials would seemingly lend credence to his arguments, however ill-founded they may be. Meanwhile, the computational theory of mind remains on sound scientific footing and best matches all of the available information to date.

What about letting the Bush tax cuts expire? They were one of the things that lead to soaring deficits in the first place. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged All I'm really arguing is that the relationship between tax rate and tax revenue is not demonstrably linear.

I think this forum is biased with an overwhelming number of scientific thinkers, and I would venture to guess many of those who trust Fox News are not.

Anyone taken a look at this? http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-Fodor/dp/0374288798 The authors of this scattershot treatise believe in evolution, but think that the Darwinian model of adaptationism—that random genetic mutations, filtered by natural selection, produce traits that enhance fitness for a particular biological niche—is fatally flawed. Philosopher Fodor and molecular-biologist-turned-cognitive-scientist Piattelli-Palmarini, at the University of Arizona, launch a three-pronged attack (which drew fire when Fodor presented their ideas in the London Review of Books in 2007). For one thing, according to the authors, natural selection contains a logical fallacy by linking two irreconcilable claims: first, that creatures with adaptive traits are selected, and second, that creatures are selected for their adaptive traits. The authors present an ill-digested assortment of scientific studies suggesting there are forces other than adaptation (some even Lamarckian) that drive changes in genes and organisms . Then they advance a densely technical argument that natural selection can't coherently distinguish between adaptive traits and irrelevant ones. Their most persuasive, and engaging, criticism is that evolutionary theory is just tautological truisms and historical narratives of how creatures came to be. Overall, the scientific evidence and philosophical analyses the authors proffer are murky and underwhelming. Worse, their highly technical treatment renders their argument virtually incomprehensible to lay readers. Sounds... interesting and weird. The language used to describe it reminds me an awful lot of Roger Penrose's book Shadows of the Mind

Well according to this article, the light may not be as "dim" as you think... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100131/ap_on_sc/us_sci_space_taxis It suggest the administration is trying to outsource spaceflight to the private sector, encouraging competition in the design of spacecraft and providing a similar environment as the X-Prize did, except the winner of this contest gets a stream of ongoing revenue from the government. I think this is a great idea. NASA doesn't exactly have the greatest track record designing a shuttle replacement.

I'm talking about enabling something closer to the Cintiq tablet (except the iPad would contain an integrated computer): http://www.wacom.com/cintiq/ Obviously the screen would be nowhere near as sensitive as your traditional Wacom tablet, but still, it would be a fun toy, especially with an app like Brushes.

It'd be interesting if Wacom released a pressure sensitive pen for the iPad (using Bluetooth I assume)

Psst, these are about the same story, which was a threat to sue, not an actual lawsuit. Hmmm... Judicial Watch' date=' the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to obtain records from the Office of former Vice President Cheney related to CIA interrogation techniques.[/indent'] Nothing about NASA GISS there. Do you even bother clicking your own links?

Well let's see, so far you've claimed: 1) The Y2K data error meant only 2 years instead of 8 of the previous decade were among the 10 warmest on record (wrong) 2) That James Hansen was sued because he failed to comply with a FOIA request for his data (wrong) 3) It took a FOIA request to get his data (wrong) 4) It took James Hansen a year to release the GISTEMP source code after McIntyre requested it (wrong) And that was in a span of a few hours... in this thread alone. Welcome back jryan, you're off to a great start. Here's a hint: if you want people to take you seriously don't post blatantly factual inaccuracies left and right. This approach is representative of climate denialists in general: you seem to care more about disparaging climate science than you do about the factual accuracy of the information you present. This is a science thread. Please stick to the facts, thanks. Which announcements are those? Lie #5 perhaps? You showed up to this thread and proceeded to lie your ass off and launch a barrage of ad hominems and slander against James Hansen. Are you surprised at the response? Generally what you're doing is referred to as "trolling"

Yes, I've tried it too, repeatedly. Pretty much every time I talk to jryan he posts one or more blatant factual inaccuracies (ostensibly cribbeed by some climate science denial blog). I tend to chalk it up to his ignorance as opposed to malice, as I certainly wouldn't want to follow in the footsteps of climate science deniers and assume malice from the offset. Perhaps one day jryan will have sufficient knowledge to actually debate the topic as opposed to blindly reposting factual inaccuracies from various climate science deniers blogs. One can only hope! I really don't want to write jryan off as a troll. I'd rather try to educate wherever possible. But jryan seems more of a fly by climate science denial spammer than someone who actually comes here to debate and learn the other side of the argument. I will continue to try to educate but each time he comes by, blogspams us, then disappears I lose hope.

In the last century there was sufficiently accurate instrumentation to assess temperature and people taking the temperature often enough for it to be a significant data point. No surprise that's your viewpoint, Mr. Climate Troll comes around every few months to rattle the cages then disappears. Harsh, but it's the truth. My responses to you aren't so much for your own edification but for posterity, since you don't seem to care but continue to post the same myopic climate science denial drivel then disappear for a few months. If you disagree, stick around, and actually defend your position. My guess is you won't.

This is far and away my #1 complaint about the iPad, however the iPad will ship with iPhone OS 3.2 and multitasking is rumored to be a feature of iPhone OS 4.0. All the more reason to wait until iPad v2 before buying one, IMO. I'll certainly buy it after I'm sure it can multitask.

The iPhone, and the success of touchscreen smartphones (e.g. Android handsets like G1, Droid, Nexus One) which don't use a stylus seem to demonstrate that the majority of people dislike them. I expect we'll see this trend repeated in the iPad.

jryan, I'll wait for you to clean up the formatting of your previous post, but... You keep claiming the GISTEMP code was released under an FOIA claim. Can you substantiate that at all? According to the Wayback Machine the GISTEMP source code has been available off the GISS web site since September, 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20070911181959/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/ This is one month after Steve McIntyre's original request. I don't think a FOIA request was ever involved. Why are you jumping to the conclusion that it was? Do you have some information I don't? Or are you just alleging malice... A full year? When are you alleging Steve McIntyre made his original request? The page you link shows he made the request on Aug 2007, and Hansen delivered Sept 2007. Did you instead mean "a full month"?

This argument is called the Laffer curve, and implies a linear relationship between tax rate and tax revenue: Unfortunately that's just not how it works in reality:

Remote sensing of SST provides excellent accuracy. That doesn't help historical data but going forward it's some of the best data analyses like GISTEMP have to work with. Anyone who plugs the relevant data into GISTEMP or CCC and performs their own analysis knows. Yet none of these "skeptics" seem to do that for some reason... FUD FUD FUD... honestly I'm getting tired of it jryan. I certainly sympathize with the scientists who withheld their data because they have to deal with people like you all day. It would be great if you started with what we actually know and work forward instead of starting with the foregone conclusion that climate science is a big conspiracy and work backward. No? To reiterate what I said earlier: why aren't these skeptics plugging their alleged inaccuracies into GISTEMP and checking the maths themselves? Anyone can do that. The source code is freely available. The data are freely available. CCC is written in Python and can be easily run on any modern computer with a Python interpreter installed. This will demonstrate the effect these alleged inaccuracies have on the final GMST assessment. If it's big, then it's a cause for concern. If it's within the expected error bars, then, well, GISS has already admitted there is that much room for error and it's to be expected. They aren't auditing the data but they are auditing the GISTEMP program itself. Both are important. They are attempting to understand the underlying maths as described in Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372. In the process they have discovered bugs in GISTEMP. Much like when Steve McIntyre discovered problems with the GISTEMP data, GISS corrected the reported bugs. Allegations that GISS is unwilling to correct problems with their code or data (allegations you made earlier) are completely unsubstantiated. To reiterate: they're not auditing the data, they're auditing the code. GISS does not produce the data, sources like NOAA/NCDC do. There is certainly concern that GISS is using the NOAA/NCDC data properly. The Y2K bug was an incident where they were not applying the appropriate corrections. However this is not a problem with the data itself. It is a problem with how GISTEMP was using the input data. So again: it's extremely important to audit the code. The bugs CCC has found, and the bug Steve McIntyre found, were both bugs in the GISTEMP code, not problems with the source data. GISS is not responsible for the source data.

Sorry, I don't play "go fish". Perhaps you'd care to post a link instead of asking me to dig through your previous posts to find it? But even then, it would be helpful for you to pull out the relevant information you want discussed and post it in the forum. What lawsuit? GISS released the emails as part of an FOIA request. There was no "lawsuit". This was a request for email sent between Hansen and his coworkers, not his code or his data. The data and the code to GISTEMP are both freely available. If you have a Python interpreter you can download the CCC implementation of GISTEMP and run it on your own computer. Yes, that's precisely what's happening. There has certainly been an undue smear campaign targeted at certain scientists as a result of cherry picked phrases. The "skeptic" community dubbed this incident "Climategate" for christ's sake... Also: this is what happens because scientists are human. Clearly they are frustrated because there's a large and vocal group challenging the science who doesn't care very much about factual accuracy so much as advancing their agenda. What they did was wrong, but to allege some sort of conspiracy to smear skeptics is simply a paranoid delusion. More FUD. If you'd like to continue to discuss the validity of GISTEMP perhaps you could do so on this thread. Until then perhaps you could avoid slanderous comparisons? Leading climate scientists! Wait... leading climate scientist? jryan, I almost find the hyperbole you use to make your claims humorous. Random accusations on a blog make it not a small incident. Right. Putting aside all these claims of guilt by association and blogs challenging science, what we have are a group of scientists at a university who wrongly withheld their data, and a smattering of scientists in other institutions who who are also implicated. I call that a small incident. Withholding their data is wrong and for that they have been rightfully admonished (we'll see where Mann ends up but he certainly seems deserving of admonishment too). UEA CRU is not exactly going to be a go to place to advance your climate science career anymore. Other than that, so what?

This has already been discussed ad nauseam on these forums (most recently on this thread). Also, what you're saying is blatantly wrong. Here's the end results of the Y2K bug: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ Data Flaw Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty. I don't know enough about this to comment' date=' nor can I find any sort of verifications of this analysis. This includes the typical FUD of "climate skeptics": he immediately jumps to the conclusion that "selection bias" is involved and apparently won't entertain any other explanation. This sounds like what jackson33 was referencing earlier on the other Global Warming thread so so perhaps he wishes to opine. That said, just to keep this in perspective the state of California comprises 0.08% of the Earth's surface. And the anticipated effect on the analysis is? FUD FUD FUD. "Hansen's track record is abysmal" because of three errors, only one of which given your description can actually be quantified? (because I pasted the relevant information) jryan, you are posting blatant falsehoods (see swansont's post) and slandering Dr. Hansen. I have a suggestion. Take the devil's advocate position. Try to think about these things through the lens of someone who isn't actively trying to disparage climate science. Think critically about the issue instead of just copying and pasting whatever drivel you find on "climate skeptic" blogs. Let's take a look at Clear Climate Code, an open source attempt to reimplement GISTEMP in Python and improve the clarity of their codebase so it is easier for climate skeptics and laymen to understand: http://clearclimatecode.org/gistemp/ We have now converted all of the GISS code to Python. Naturally we have found (minor) bugs while doing this, but nothing else. We are currently “catching up” so that the code in ccc-gistemp reflects the changes that GISS have made to GISTEMP (such as using the USHCN version 2 dataset; see issue 7). It is our opinion that the GISTEMP code performs substantially as documented in Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372., the GISTEMP documentation, and other papers describing updates to the procedure. Yes, GISTEMP has bugs and data errors. But that's no reason to speak in ridiculous hyperbole like "Hansen's track record is abysmal." What matters is how much these bugs and errors actually affect the final analysis. So far, the answer is: not much.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/27/senate_rejects_deficit_task_force/ Republicans inherit a budget surplus. Republicans turn it into the worst budget deficit in the history of planet earth. Republicans threaten to filibuster Democratic attempts to address the problem. Then Republicans blame the Democrats for the problem.

You might start here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Signature_Algorithm

jryan, I don't have access to the full article as I'm not a Nature subscriber, however that article is about the sensitivity of the climate system to positive feedbacks occurring as part of the carbon cycle. It states that the magnitude of the climate sensitivity of the global carbon cycle is most likely in the lower portion of the range of previous estimates. Therefore papers which show forecasts in the upper portion of the expected range are probably wrong, and that the effects of anthropogenic CO2 will not be as amplified by positive feedbacks as the upper estimates might suggest. This this paper may provide the basis for more refined projections, but the original estimates were still giving a range. I don't see what this paper has to do with any of these statements. But hey' date=' since you're back, perhaps you'd care to opine on this thread.

I think the main advantage of the iPad is that all of the applications are designed for a touchscreen interface. There's no cursor. I assume you use a stylus to control your tablet PC? I'm not a fan.