I note that the Index at my.opera.com/oldephartte/links is inactive at the moment. I'll be monitoring that to see what happens. Anyone who has 'lost' 2 years of newsblogging really means that.
I’m sorry but we blew up your laptop (welcome to Israel)
-
I really admire your spirit and enthusiasm about the issue and about trying to share awareness about Palestine and “Israel”. I’m a Palestinian Muslim who lived in Palestine my whole life and suffered from the occupation on a daily basis. But I would respectfully like to add that it’s stereotyping and inaccurate to call all the Jews living and occupying Palestine as Zionist Pigs as there are many who were born and raised in occupied Palestine “Israel” and were raised on the idea of this land belonging to them and have never heard the facts of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. So I think these people deserve more respect than putting them in the same category with the ones killing children and unarmed people in Gaza and the West Bank.
With all respect.
Maher
Maher said, on December 14, 2009 at 
http://technorati.com/videos/article/international-bottled-water-association-fights-back
Bottled water has been getting a lot of bad press lately, primarily from environmental groups who point to the negative environmental impact made by bottling and selling a product that most people have cheaply available to them at home and at work. The primary cause for concern is the manufacture and disposal of the plastic bottles. Environmental groups also have claimed that the government regulates tap water more stringently than bottled water and therefore bottled water is likely to contain more impurities and bacteria than tap water.
The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) is attempting to convince consumers that bottled water isn't bad for the environment and is actually better for you than tap water, and they recently got an unexpected boost by a report indicating that more than 20% of the nation's water supply is in violation of federal safety standards. Unsafe drinking water is apparently responsible for millions of instances of illness in the U.S. each year.
Remembering The Truth Laid Bear
It’s okay if you don’t. I’ve mentioned the blog directory/search engine to a few dialed in friends recently and received blank stares. At one time it was a pretty big deal though, at least within the bourgeoning blogospheric community during the middle of this decade.
The search and ranking system were always a little bit wonky, but what I loved about TTLB was its blogosphere ecosystem page. Beyond the fact that I’ve always been obsessed with rankings and statistics and numbers, TTLB did a few things really really well. • Its ecosystem mimicked the real ecosystem - On the “lower” or less popular end, blogs are ranked into broad groupings such as Insignificant Microbes, Multicellular Microorganisms, and Wiggly Worms. Rankings are based on “the number of incoming links [blogs] receive from other weblogs on the list.” As blogs increase links and influence they “evolve” into categories such as Crawly Amphibians, Slithering Reptiles, and Marauding Marsupials. The most popular blogs according to TTLB take on lofty titles such as Playful Primates, Mortal Humans, and, at the very top, Higher Beings. I love the tongue-in-cheek titles and think that they did a great job of parsing the blogosphere into relative categories. A TechCrunch or DailyKos really is a “higher being” as compared to a blog with eight visitors a day, you know?
• It provided a daily snapshot of the growing blogosphere - I used to visit TTLB every day (particularly to see where Blogcritics was sitting in the mix), and it was interesting to watch the leading “higher beings” of the time flip flop rankings with one another. The overall trend was explosive growth.
The Truth Laid Bear
Myanmar Opium Production Continues To Increase
http://technorati.com/politics/article/myanmar-opium-production-continues-to-increase
What should be done with a country that, despite being intentionally watched for last decade or so, is increasingly becoming a global threat by producing killer addictive drugs? How do we plan to control the situation when the survey data clearly indicates the rising growth of opium cultivation?
Stolen emails, climate change, and the practice of science
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/11/stolen_emails_climate_change_a.php
Since you claim to not know anything about climate research and yet post a graph as if it were authoritative, I am including some other research on the subject so that all those "arm chair scientists" can listen to REAL scientists who are VERSED in this field and get both sides of the story.
This whole topic reminds me of those researching Venus, only that is much worse. Proponents of different theories will use the exact same data to say it supports what they believe is true. There are few researchers in that department that are objective about it.
This topic is only so huge because there are people worried about the government policies that will be created. That brings me to the following:
ahh, #21 but in the meantime people are going to be making government policy on something that is unclear? In time peer review might work things out, but who's going to reverse the gov policy if it is wrong? I think that is where people start getting freaked out about this whole thing. They don't want something put upon them if it isn't appropriate.
Here is what a Finnish documentary and scientists say about the topic. Click the link to view the video.
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
And also John Daly (a climate scientist) said this in 2001:
Take this from first principles.
A tree only grows on land. That excludes 70% of the earth covered by
water. A tree does no grow on ice. A tree does not grow in a desert. A
tree does not grow on grassland-savannahs. A tree does not grow in
alpine areas. A tree does not grow in the tundra
We are left with perhaps 15% of the planet upon which forests
grow/grew. That does not make any studies from tree rings global, or
even hemispheric.
The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following
variables which cannot be reliably separated from each other.
sunlight - if the sun varies, the ring will vary. But not at night of
course.
cloudiness - more clouds, less sun, less ring.
pests/disease - a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce
photosynthesis
access to sunlight - competition within a forest can disadvantage or
advantage some trees.
moisture/rainfall - a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a drought
even if there's a heat wave.
snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth
temperature - finally!
The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of
temperature. Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their
rings do not and cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from
the other environmental variables.
In my article on Greening Earth Society on the Hockey Stick, I point to
other evidence which contradicts Mann's theory. The Idso's have produced
more of that evidence, and a new article on Greening Earth has
`unearthed' even more.
Mann's theory simply does not stack up. But that was not the key issue.
Anyone can put up a dud theory from time to time. What is at issue is
the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the theory before
its scientific value had been properly tested. In one go, they tossed
aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE and LIA
as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings - a proxy which has
all the deficiencies I have stated above.
The worst thing I can say about any paper such as his is that it is `bad
science'. Legal restraint prevents me going further. But in his case,
only those restraints prevent me going *much* further.
Cheers
John Daly
Josh, as a scientist, I am appalled by your attitude. Not only are you defiantly ignorant of the foundation of this scandal, you haven't even gotten basic details correct. And you seem unaware of the ethical and legal boundaries that have been crossed. Were you not required to have any training at all in professional ethics, even as an undergraduate?
The publicized emails have never been claimed to be a "random sample". There were no private details, like credit-card receipts, that were released in the FOIA package. Then you wrote
What we see is that scientists can be jerks, can be parochial, can respond badly to criticism, can circle their wagons against outsiders (especially cranks and dilettantes desperate to prove that the entire enterprise of climate science should be tossed out the window). In short, the emails prove that scientists are human.
What it shows is that scientists can form criminal conspiracies (a collaboration to destroy emails rather than turn them over in a FOIA response would be exactly that.) It shows that scientists can conspire to get journal editors fired for political incorrectness -- not criminal, but certainly unethical. It shows that scientists can conspire to hide problems with their data analysis. This isn't just being "human", it's called being a bad scientist.
Honestly, you need to take off the priestly garbs and get some training in ethics, or your career in science will be extremely short and extremely unpleasant. You need to figure out that the East Anglia CRU are not the good guys here.
BBB
I haven't really used HTML before, so please forgive me if the links don't work...but even if they don't, the pages they point to ought to be easily discoverable with a quick metasearch.
#10 Posted by: rapanui
"On Dutch blogs, as a response to the hype, there is now mention of this website which supposedly mentions 450 peer-reviewed 'skeptical' papers, 'proving' that there is real controversy. I hope it's a nonsense list, of course, but I am not qualified enough to judge."
Of course. But, if it's not too presumptuous a request, would you explain a little about why you'd hope for that?
#13 Posted by: SLC
"The web site is owned by Anthony Watts, a noted global warming denier. I would be willing to bet that either the journals that the reports were published in are dubious or that the articles don't say what nutcase Watts says that they say. This is a notable tactic which has been engaged in by other deniers."
Perhaps the US Senate is more trustworthy? Here's their minorty report on 650 scientists who dissent to some degree with the general anthropogenic global warming scenario.
#14 Posted by: Raging Bee
"What about STEALING things you had no right to take? Does that criminal action not taint the denialists who rely on the fruits of theft, and praise the thieves?
Unlike the CRU, the denialists have explicitly admitted that they are trafficking in stolen goods. That's a taint of crime and dishonesty the CRU have yet to match."
And why was it necessary to steal this information to begin with? I don't know about you, but I for one intend to find what information demonstrating the forthrightness of the CRU is available.
#15, #16 and #31:
"...but based on what people are saying about the emails (I refuse to read them or to link to sites which list the emails in their entirety), there's no smoking gun, nor are there powder burns or any other evidence that a gun ever existed."
If you haven't read them, you have no right to even comment. Typical...turn a blind eye.
Posted by: FtK
False. He has every right to comment on whatever he wants. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing."
Posted by: Woody Tanaka
"If you haven't read them, you have no right to even comment.
Actually, in the United States, according to the United States Constitution, you do. Why do you hate America for its freedoms?"
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz
Probably what FtK meant by "right to" was "grounds on which to", since reading the emails would seem to be requisite to commenting upon their contents. While FtK might be well advised to consider his words more carefully, responding to such a comment by deliberately misinterpreting the spirit of its meaning, which I admittedly presume posters Tanaka and Elifritz were doing, is, at the very least, not a very constructive contribution.
#21 Posted by: Oroboros
"Recently a female ESPN reporter who was illegally filmed in her hotel room for prurient purposes and that video leaked. I don't need to see it now in order to know that her rights were violated. In fact, viewing the video would make me complicit in the violation."
The analogy being that the CRU staff's rights were violated, and therefore the information gained via such violation ought to be ignored (i.e. that the exclusionary rule ought to apply)? A major difference is that ESPN reporters and their hotel-room activities have little to do with the forging of inter/national policies. But perhaps that is not sufficient grounds to violate the privacy of CRU emails. The question then becomes, at least to me (though probably not to a defense attourney!), does the content of the emails, which concerns the scientific basis for the shaping of public policy on a global scale, constitute private material? And, regardless of anyone's opinion on that question, here is a follow-up: whose rights are being violated more egregiously, the scientists', or the public who will be living under the policies formed mainly by the scientists' work?
"So it is with this case. Even if there is academic misconduct here, I have faith that the peer-review process will sort it out over time and that is the way it should be resolved, not by trespass and theft."
The peer-review process may indeed sort it out, and we may indeed at some period in the hazy and uncertain future know what the genuine data is, but the Conference of Parties is occuring NOW, and it seems likely to me that its consequences will be felt long before the peer-review process finally gives its yea or nay.
#25 Posted by: robhoofd
"Do the emails contain anything more incriminating than some allusions to, as Mr. Rosenau says, "tricks"?"
They are now part of the public domain, "rightly" or "wrongly". So allow me to respond to your question with a question: why don't you find out?
"Where is the email that says "I can't believe these suckers are still buying our global warming bullcrap"?"
Is that really what is required, a direct, concise, unequivocal confession? Would you even believe such a confession were it to be made? What are your criteria of acceptability?
"All this is is internal (human) conversation with some rude remarks and some lingo."
I took it from your previously quoted question that you haven't actually read the emails, so I'm at a loss as to what this statement is based upon.
"Only because the deniers have nothing of substance to grab on to nowadays, they have proclaimed this to be the end of all science. Bollocks."
The word "deniers" keeps popping up in discussions and articles dealing with this subject. I wonder if it's the case that everyone just happened to hit upon this particular term following independent, logical contemplation of the issue? Terminology is very revealing, especially as regards the source(s) of a stated or implied opinion. I'll refrain from using the phrase I'm about to coin, Climate Stability Deniers, outside of this very demonstration on the grounds that habitually labeling anyone suchly would only serve to engender and encourage unfavorable (and fundamentally dishonest) prejudice against them by assigning them to a conceptual category the sole criterion of which being that the opinions and claims of anyone assigned to said category ("deniers") are dismissable by default.
#27 Posted by: Oroboros
"Ah, the peer-review religionists squeak. What a corrupt bunch of colonized minds.
The ad hominem attacks have destroyed whatever point you were trying to make."
I agree.
( Logical Fallacies are the basis of false argument and disinformation : and are useful in Framing 'Debate'...controlling 'acceptable parameters' of discussion. That's why Perception Alteration is an ongoing list of articles, etc. )
Consensus and controversy: Which makes the news?
http://www2.ucar.edu/magazine/currents/consensus-and-controversy-which-makes-news
Last week’s news about the hacking of some 1,000 private e-mails written by prominent climate scientists, including Kevin Trenberth here at NCAR, is likely to further embolden skeptics. Some say the e-mails paint a picture of scientists who were distorting climate change research—an allegation sharply denied by the hacking target, the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
On caution
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band139/b139-2.html
There are many traps and pitfalls to negotiate when assessing evidence, and it is all too easy to be misled by an apparently beautiful study that later turns out to be wrong, or by a meta-analysis with impeccable credentials that seems to be trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Although these are themes often found in the pages of Bandolier, a little reinforcement rarely comes amiss.
In the past people have commented that only 1% of articles in scientific journals are scientifically sound [2]. Bandolier has often examined articles showing how we consumers of scientific literature can be misled, and how we often are. Another paper from Greece [3] is replete with Greek mathematical symbols and philosophy. It makes a number of important points:
1. The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
2. The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
3. The greater the number and the fewer the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
4. The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
5. The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
6. The hotter a scientific field (the more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
There is lots more in these fascinating papers, but from here on in it all gets more detailed and more complex without becoming necessarily much easier to understand. There is nothing here that contradicts what we already know, namely that if we accept evidence of poor quality, without validity, or where there are few events or numbers of patients, we are likely, often highly likely, to be misled.
If we concentrate on evidence of high quality, which is valid, and with large numbers, that will hardly ever happen. As Ioannidis also comments, if instead of chasing some ephemeral statistical significance we concentrate our efforts where there is good prior evidence, our chances of getting the true result are better - concentrating on all the evidence. Which may be why clinical trials on pharmaceuticals are so often significant statistically, and in the direction of supporting a drug. Yet even in that very special circumstance, where so much treasure is expended, years of work with positive results can come to naught when the big trials are done and do not produce the expected answer.
450 more lies from the climate change Deniers
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers
( Poisoning the Well argumentation requires you 'put words in another's mouth' and control the topic of 'discussion'. Labeling is a favourite method of achieving this. )
Mark Steyn: Cooking the books on climate
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/peer-221438-reviewed-climate.html
The more frantically two prominent global-warming alarmists talked up "peer review" as the only legitimate basis for scientific criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into the Chicago machine politics of international science.
The Orange County Register
Hot Topic
Bush-era e-mails retrieved
- 22 million Bush-era e-mails are found
- Missing Bush e-mails recovered
- 'Lost' Bush e-mail settlement requires White House reveal IT practices
- From: USA To: George W. Bush Re: 22 Million Emails
- 22 million missing Bush era emails uncovered: Watchdogs
Quotes From the Web
- Here's China with $800 billion of our debt, and we're going to give them ten billion dollars to stop generating electricity. I don't think that's going to happen. - James Inhofe
- This is now something which is going to happen, and the only question now is whether or not, as you say, command-and-control of the EPA is going to be the way in which we solve the problem, or legislation that allows us to protect trade-intensive, energy-intensive industries, to protect consumers, is put in place - Ed Markey
DotSUB
dotSUB is a browser based tool that enables subtitling of videos on the web into and from any language. The mission is “to eliminate language as a barrier to cross-cultural communication using web video”.
The dotSUB tool can be used by professional translators, or it can be offered in an open, “wiki” type environment. dotSUB gives anyone the ability to translate video content from one language into multiple languages, producing subtitles rendered over the bottom of the video. The resulting repurposed video files can then be shared or downloaded and distributed across multiple devices.
The dotSUB tool can be used by professional translators, or it can be offered in an open, “wiki” type environment. dotSUB gives anyone the ability to translate video content from one language into multiple languages, producing subtitles rendered over the bottom of the video. The resulting repurposed video files can then be shared or downloaded and distributed across multiple devices.
http://www.brightcove.com/en/partners/dotsub
Featured Translations 
RSS in Plain English
Duration: 03:45
Posted by: leelefever
197,983 Views
Translations 5
WiserEarth is a free online community space connecting the people, nonprofits and businesses working toward a just and sustainable world
http://www.wiserearth.org
http://www.wiserearth.org
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=a0429a94-1085-42f5-8572-336a20574f1a)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment