< --- Glass of wine and some popcorn btw - on the plane from NY to Chicago I sat next to a group of "climate scientists" that were arguing the relative security of various forms of scripting languages and web frameworks, my ears perked when one of them said he was working on erection management, which after a sigh was followed by I mean the ruby template engine called erector, I was amused until the other one mentioned blow fish and meant it literally.
If a penguin farts while being held affectionately by Brett Michaels from Poison does Bruce Schneir still blog about squids on Friday? On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Robert Graham <[email protected] > wrote: > > No, I'm simply exasperated at (1) the gross stupidity of > > supposedly-intelligent people, and at (2) the unbelievable > > arrogance of > > the unintelligent and/or uneducated who have absolutely no > > clue, yet > > have the audacity to pretend otherwise. > > Irony. Lulz. > > > Can you -- generic you -- right here, right now, without > > any help, > > state the three laws of thermodynamics, give an example of > > a perturbation > > function, explain the carbon dioxide phase diagram, and > > solve a partial > > differential equation? If not, then you > > really should not be trying > > to express an opinion on global warming. > > I understand all your buzzwords. You are choosing random jargon to > intimidate people. I'm not impressed. > > If Al Gore is getting Oscars and Nobel Prizes, then the only qualification > you need to join the debate is to understand science at least as well as Al > Gore. That's pretty much everybody. > > I would suggest that understanding the "scientific method" is important. > That, for me, is what made me a skeptic (and what encouraged me to learn > climatology). The IPCC has gaping holes in their scientific method. The > worst is the way computer models have replaced empirical data. The second > worst is the way that historical reconstructions (aka. the Hockey Sticks) > are not reproducible, not statistically robust, and which contain "tricks to > hide the decline". The IPCC, and scientists like Mann and Jones, do things > openly and publicly that no other scientific discipline would tolerate. The > Climategate e-mails don't really show anything new, but have focused > people's attention on these errors. I'll bet money that the next IPCC > assessment report will not contain a graph that "hides the decline" like the > current one does. > > I'll give you a chance to make me look like a fool. I'm scratching my head > about your "CO2 phase change diagram" buzzword. The partial pressure of CO2 > never gets high enough to deposit out of the atmosphere, and I don't think > there are lakes of CO2 under the ocean (where in theory, pressure is high > enough to make CO2 a solid/liquid). I'm at a loss to explain why this has > relevance to the IPCC conclusion that mankind is responsible for global > warming. Please enlighten me, and show everyone how little I know of climate > science. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. >
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
