Scientists scoff at AP global-warming story
posted at 11:55 am on December 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Remember that global-warming wet kiss from the AP to climate-change activists and Barack Obama earlier this week? Even scientists who believe in global warming couldn’t quite believe their eyes. They called the report by the Seth Borenstein a “polemic” and wondered when research stopped being a requirement for science reporters (via Q&O):
James O’Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make changes based on bad science.
“Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world,” O’Brien said. “But everything that’s attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming.”
He took issue with the AP article’s assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global sea levels to rise.
“When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water,” O’Brien said. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down. I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it [melt]. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
And that comes from Borenstein’s ally on global warming. O’Brien calls hysteria on sea levels “major scare tactic,” the kind one would expect a science reporter to debunk rather than to perpetuate. He wants public policy on climate change to be informed rather than hysterical. The fact that water is less dense as a solid than as a liquid — which is why ice cubes float in your drink — never seems to occur to the AP’s “science” writer, who probably never heard of the Archimedes Principle before now. The only way melting ice would raise sea levels would be if water was more dense as a solid than a liquid, which if true would mean ice would get submerged below water than float on top of it.
Other scientists blasted the entire basis of Borenstein’s reporting as well as his ignorance of research:
“If the issues weren’t so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it,” said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue. …
“The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.” …
Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho, is another academic who found serious flaws with the AP story’s approach to the issue.
“There’s very little that’s right about it,” Fox said. “And it’s really harmful to the United States because people like this Borenstein working for AP have an enormous impact on everyone, because AP sells their news service to a thousand news outlets.
Fox understands the problem, but undersells the scale. When the AP produces propaganda rather than reporting, it gets distributed to thousands of publications around the world. Unfortunately, the rebuttals don’t get that kind of distribution, and the lies and propaganda get accepted as truth.
Unfortunately, that’s been the history of the global-warming cult over the last decade. They accept no challenges, demonize those who question their science, scoff at contradictory data (such as the fact that temperatures have stopped rising), and insist on politicizing their science rather than work from facts. The AP has become the cult’s propaganda arm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Not helping.
Of course burning fossil fuels increases the amount of CO2 in the air. How could it not? The question is, “by how much?” I’ve seen a graph of CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration over time (unfortunately I can’t remember where) in which the CO2 emission varied wildly, yet the C02 concentration showed a smooth increase.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2008 at 8:24 PM
I know it is easier to avoid answering the tough questions and then accuse everyone of presenting strawman arguments.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:27 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 8:21 PM
I don’t think either of you would know much about that. Poptech, for one, clearly doesn’t have a CS background. Good god, I mentioned “computer graphics” in a CS context and his mind jumped to Photoshop… that’s not a trained computer scientist.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Here is one.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Please… I’ve asked others. Maybe you will answer.
Can you point to a recent post where you think you made a reasonable, informed, non-fallacious point?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:28 PM
No, that was temperature vs CO2.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Dave, seriously. I am not a computer guru.. but i do work with ASCII, .LAS, .LIS, and quite a few other interesting files all the time in my profession. I know what I am doing… the problem is you are showing you don’t know what you are doing.
Get a clue Dave.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Good lord, I think the only thing this thread has decisively illuminated is the deleterious effect of “global warming” on the hormone levels of beta males.
Y’all are hilarious.
I took one year of geology decades ago and I learned enough to know that this is the biggest scam ever perpetrated. Except, perhaps, for the public education system, which is directly responsible for the quick’n'easy establishment of this new religion.
califcon on December 17, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Dave please explain who you work for – exactly what field. “Computer Graphics” is incredibly vague. I have a degree in computer science and am employed as an analyst.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:32 PM
All of them. Your declaration of them being the opposite does not make it so.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:34 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Here’s the thing… if you hear computer science and start thinking of actual computers or software, you aren’t thinking of computer science. As Djikstra famously said: “Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.”
When I say computer graphics, someone with a non-CS background thinks of photoshop. Someone with a CS-backgroup thinks of the rendering equation (around which the entire discipline is formed), BRDFs, radiosity and global illumination algorithms. Here, go read some papers.
In any case, that’s pretty much when I realized that Poptech was just a troll and was making up the CS thing.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:39 PM
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Here’s the thing… if you hear computer science and start thinking of actual computers or software, you aren’t thinking of computer science. As Djikstra famously said: “Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.”
When I say computer graphics, someone with a non-CS background thinks of photoshop. Someone with a CS-backgroup thinks of the rendering equation (around which the entire discipline is formed), BRDFs, radiosity and global illumination algorithms. Here, go read some papers.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:40 PM
I told you my background was in real-time simulation, for research and defense. I’ve worked on research projects. I’ve worked on flight simulators for fighter planes.
Computer graphics is not vague at all in the context of computer science or even software development, especially when further contextualized with references to simulation.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Do you know why Homeopathic and Chiropractic medicine developed and succeded in the 19th Century?
Because they didn’t work.
But the standard medical cures made you worse, bloodletting, purges ect.
You were better off with a doctor that wouldn’t kill you unless you needed a bone set, or a tumor cut out.
Oh, and “The Mentalist” last night had an interesting theme
tmitsss on December 17, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Ugh, my last comment got filtered because of links. I’ll try again.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Here’s the thing… if you hear computer science and start thinking of actual computers or software, you aren’t thinking of computer science. As Djikstra famously said: “Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.”
When I say computer graphics, someone with a non-CS background thinks of photoshop. Someone with a CS-backgroup thinks of the rendering equation (around which the entire discipline is formed), BRDFs, radiosity and global illumination algorithms, the physics of light transport, etc. Go search google scholar for “siggraph” and read some things.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Back to your useless paper.
“The purpose of this paper is to put forward a new estimate (guess), in the context of previous assessments, of the annual
global mean energy budget. [...]
The values put forward in Fig. 7 are reasonable but clearly not exact. The purpose of this paper is not so much to present definitive values, but to discuss how they were obtained and give some sense of the uncertainties and issues in determining the numbers. Several quantities in Fig. 7 are not adequately measured to pin them down as much as desirable, and the global climate models are not yet good enough to justify refining the estimates here, which are based on a much simpler but appropriately tuned (guesstimated) and observationally constrained radiation model.”
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Oh an expensive video game graphics designer. Do you guys hire natural scientists with no computer science education to program your code using Fortran?
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Please guys…quit propogating this thread and force DaveS to do something else with his time.
Hey Dave, read this ENTIRE page of links, then come back.
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
jimmy the notable on December 17, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Here’s the easy answer to the greenhouse effect question. H20 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. clouds. It is a much higher concentration then CO2, no matter what we do, it always will be. Cloud formation is effected by cosmic radiation, the sun’s magnetic field effects cosmic radiation. Clouds effect the climate much more than CO2. More clouds = cooler planet. Therefore, THE SUN effects the climate.
jimmy the notable on December 17, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 8:48 PM
You don’t seem to understand “science” very well. And, that also nicely reinforces the increasingly obvious conclusion that you actually have no backgroun in computer science at all. We’ll just leave it at that.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Good one.
As a hobby I do C++ programming for an Orbital Dynamics Simulator and I also do 3d model design for the same said simulator. I know how stuff can be fudged when the simulation doesn’t quite meet the challenge. You should see some of my fudging to get a Firefly, (the space ship from the TV series), to fly. I wouldn’t even consider it “real” simulation. (A Firefly could never fly in the real world anyway.)
I have no doubt lots of fudging goes on with weather models.
jmarcure on December 17, 2008 at 9:03 PM
jimmy the notable on December 17, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Yes, That is true and self-evident.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:04 PM
I got my degree from an engineering university not a liberal arts college. That is still a stupid quote and this sort of thought process is why idiots who enter the field think computers can do more than they actually can. Computer science is all about computers which is why it is called COMPUTER science.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:07 PM
jmarcure on December 17, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Absolutely it does. You can download Hansen’s source code if you dare (it’s ugly FORTRAN). I’ve looked at it but never built it, though I think you could get it running if that’s the sort of thing that you think sounds fun. :-)
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:07 PM
NO I understand it very well which is why you don’t understand that computers cannot fill in the blanks for what you don’t know and estimates “modeled” on computers are worthless. I would appreciate it if you stopped lying about my education, thank you. Your video game graphic designing though is much more impressive.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:09 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:07 PM
No, computer science is, in short, about solving problems. Computers are just tools. A computer scientist need not ever touch a computer.
An “engineering university”? That sounds suspiciously like the sort of place that doesn’t offer computer science degrees. Not that there’s anything wrong with that at all, but if it is more of a trade school that would explain your emphasis on implementation (photoshop) over theory (computer graphics).
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 8:05 PM
A) Yeah it really does.
From the first 2 lines of your article in case you stopped reading:
“Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned.”
B) It is only mentioning the absorption of CO2 back into the ocean… it doesnt at all mention the release of CO2 from ocean plantlife and bacteria due to the warmer temperatures, nor that of those on land.
It wasnt till just over a decade ago that scientists knew that plants were far more efficient at absorbing CO2 due to sun shading. They discovered this when there was a sudden drop in atmospheric CO2 after Mt Pinatubo.
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:09 PM
See, when you say things like that one can’t help but come to the conclusion that you’re an idiot who knows NOTHING about computer modeling in general. No reasonable, informed person here is going to believe that your ridiculous, broad characterization of “models” is anything more.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Oh man this is worse than I thought, you really think Computer Scientists don’t even need to touch a computer?
Sorry to stop your lies but mine was a fully acredited 4 year school that offered various computer related degrees, including computer engineering, computer science and information technology.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Geeze, I though I cleared this up a couple of hours ago..
BigWyo on December 17, 2008 at 9:18 PM
I’m gonna keep my Liberal Arts self out of the hand-to-hand combat but I do have a question: Is oxygen depletion caused by deforestation a potential problem?
Venusian Visitor on December 17, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Maxx on December 17, 2008 at 9:21 PM
I understand computer modeling very well which is why I stated that. Your definition of an informed person is someone who believes 1+1=1.25 is close enough. You don’t like hearing that your model is WRONG (when it is). You like to make excuses for being wrong. That is why I love my job, I have to be right or it doesn’t work.
Computers are either right or wrong, there is no way around that then again you are bringing up abstract theory. See this actually explains a lot. People who hide in abstraction have a problem with reality.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Dave the computer models are wrong therefore worthless = fact.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:24 PM
BS… Comupter help to solve, they do not solve problems.
They help with the gathering of all research material and when put together in some specific form or graph can show the detail of the research but can no figure out the equation of how to solve the problem.
Those who think it can solve, without making programs to decode, eliminate and recalculate individual data… are idiotic.
Anyone working in computer science would know that!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 9:14 PM
A] You said it blames all CO2 on man. It doesn’t. It says that the CO2 increase is “virtually entirely” due to human activities. Man only produces a small amount of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere each year (2-3% on the high end).
B] No, it doesn’t mention that. You might have a point, I’ll have to read deeper into the actual studies on it and see if that’s accounted for. You are asserting, though, that a tiny rise in temperatures is somehow responsible for skyrocketing CO2 (60+% growth) over a very short period which perfectly correlates with industrial growth. That seems a bit dubious to me. I won’t use the “d”-word because of the connotations it carries with respect to this topic recently, but it comes to mind.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:26 PM
“Garbage in, garbage out.” is a concept that exceeds some people’s mental grasp.
jimmy the notable on December 17, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Computer Climate Models: Voodoo for Scientists (PDF)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Douche Bag???
BigWyo on December 17, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Some people invest quite a bit of time to be wrong and have to defend their creations (climate models) for their ego. The basics don’t change no matter how complex they make the model.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Dyson: Climate models are rubbish (The Register, UK)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:32 PM
A Skeptical View of Climate Models (Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Oops, sorry about the above post, I wanted to hit preview and hit submit comment instead.
But anyway starfleet_dude, you realize that the chart you linked above STARTS at the “Little Ice Age” don’t you? That was when it was WAY TOO cold. You don’t want to go back to that situation. If your chart went back to at least 900AD you would see the Midieval Warm Period that lasted about 450 years.
It was much much warmer than any period we have had for the last 200 years. So relax, the temperature today is well withing the normal variation of known global temperature shifts. Everything is cool and the global warming hoax is just another way liberals hope to tax you to fix a problem that does not exist.
Maxx on December 17, 2008 at 9:33 PM
jimmy the notable on December 17, 2008 at 9:26 PM
And then, of course, there are those who don’t have the capacity to understand when the phrase is applicable.
Out of curiosity, based on Poptech’s childish comments over the last couple of hours, have you somehow come under the impression that I have confidence in global climate models? Admit it… you think I do. Such is the power of a loquacious idiot with an arsenal of fallacious arguments, like Poptech.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.“ – Nikola Tesla, 1934
Climate Models Overheat Antarctica, New Study Finds (Science Daily)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM
With Computers? All the time. I know, I know you run your special abstract computer that defies all the laws of physics.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:35 PM
So, poptech, do you never fly on modern aircraft out of fear of the physics models running in their sensory systems?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Are they abstract or based on real physics?
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:39 PM
So are you that idiot that came out with the Super Cubs new device via the FAA rules concerning problematic seats. A freaking seat belt for the damn seat!
FREAKING GENIUS! Who in their right mind would make a seat belt FOR the dang seat? How about fix the seat, convert the holes, make a better track.. but nooooo you made a seat belt.
Just freaking GENIUS at work… no wonder the FAA is a joke anymore.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Computer science isn’t “science”. A computer scientist is about as qualified to discuss global warming as is an auto mechanic.
Hollowpoint on December 17, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Exactly! But isn’t the real problem that as we change fossil fuels such as coal and oil from solids and liquids here on earth into CO2, an atmospheric gas, we are changing the mass of the earth? Inevitably this is apt to change the earth’s orbit, which in turn will drive climate change.
Trainwreck on December 17, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Well, being models and all, they are based on real physics.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Faith-Based Models (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:42 PM
It’s gonna be okay, honey. It’s alllll gonna be okay.
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 9:42 PM
You are joking… right?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Trainwreck on December 17, 2008 at 9:40 PM
… What?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Computer models can be based on whatever you choose it to be. I am happy that those models are based on real physics and not guesses, assumptions and theoretical uncertainties like climate models.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Poptech, you seem incapable of distinguishing huge, complex models of climate (which we don’t understand), with models in general.
Hollowpoint on December 17, 2008 at 9:40 PM
No offense, but that was incredibly ill-informed. Not everyone knows what computer science is, so its forgiveable. Computer science is, for the most part, the intersection of mathematics and various other sciences where computation is involved. It is math applied to solving the problems of particular scientific disciplines.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:47 PM
I understand the difference and stated it as such – go reread.
Now here we go again quoting Wikipedia.
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
“Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience. The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading. And the only way to verify the information posted to Wikipedia is to independently research the subject from a reputable source. Wikipedia is thus broken by design and “truth” is simply determined by who edits last.“
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Then why do you keep talking about climate models, as though I had endorsed them?
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:50 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
Jim Treacher on December 17, 2008 at 9:51 PM
LOL, poptech is a crank, big time. The urgent importance of the link-spamming was more than he could bear.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Is there a picture of Al Gore there?
Buddahpundit on December 17, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Buddahpundit on December 17, 2008 at 9:55 PM
LOL, you’ve got Gore on the one side, screaming about the end of the world. And on the other, you’ve got people like Poptech, screaming at the world about their conspiracies.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Here you are again DaveS spouting the same old nonsense. Even if the “isotopic signature” of CO2 caused by man was different that would not change the wavelength it absorbs.
Besides, CO2 has LESS ability to absorb heat than either oxygen or water vapor and CO2 is a minority gas compared to either oxygen or water vapor.
Saying that CO2 has a substantial effect on heat in the atmosphere is like saying another drop of water in the ocean will cause global flooding. Its just nuts. Besides we already know that CO2 LAGS temperature increases and is thus the RESULT of increased temperature NOT THE CAUSE.
And where do you get the idea that the ocean is rising? It is NOT rising.
Maxx on December 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM
I understand you wish people not to read the informative but there is no need to lie.
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Maxx on December 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Maxx, look out for that point flying over your head! And I don’t recall making a statement about sea levels rising or falling, either way.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Poptech, I am a skeptic. I think that is well established to anyone who actually knows how to read.
You, on the other hand, appear to be entirely unskeptical. You’re downright dogmatic.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I dont’t believe in any conspiracies. Just because I have uncovered blatantly obvious connections between environmental groups and the global warming hysteria does not make it a conspiracy. Religions are not conspiracies.
Environmentalism as Religion (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Your attempts to discredit me by lying is failing.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 10:02 PM
What is your intention about stating lies about me over and over?
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 10:04 PM
First of all, you haven’t uncovered anything… those connectins are, as you said, blatantly obvious. They are also immaterial to the discussion.
The bigger trend with you is that you are a very narrow thinker.
You aren’t capable of distinguishing computer models in general with climate models in particular.
You aren’t capable of distinguishing the field of computer graphics from computer graphics software.
You aren’t capable of distinguishing the actual science behind the climate change debate from the debate itself–which is why you keep linking to speeches and other aspects of the “debate” when you should be linking to science.
You seem to prefer grouping anything tangentially related into a giant amorphous blob, rather than understanding the nuances of things. A speech by a scientist is not science, a graphic designer is not a computer scientist, a hundred of computer models “glued together” with a layer of BS between them (ie global climate models) does not discredit computer models in general.
You repeatedly use this tactic of generalizing in order to “argue” against the specific. It is a fallacy. You do it over and over and over.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Oops, you in fact did not say anything about rising oceans, my apologies.
Maxx on December 17, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Oh wait I know, Dave is the “informed” middle ground skeptic who really believes RealClimate is an accurate source of information. Give me a break, RealClimate is nothing more than a filibuster site designed to give the impression of disputing every skeptical argument with the air of “authority” by having it written by dogmatic leftist scientists. You are a supposed skeptic who links to Wikipedia? Is this a joke?
Wikipropaganda On Global Warming (CBS News)
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Um… no. Using math to solve problems? Number crunching isn’t science anymore than accounting is.
Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Astronomy and arguably Mathematics- science.
Writing the programming to make Fallout 3? Not science.
Hollowpoint on December 17, 2008 at 10:15 PM
If a website is hosted by a environmental organization with direct connections to Al Gore that you are claiming is an accurate source is beyond material to the discussion.
Again with the lies.
Again more lies.
Again more lies.
More lies… I made none of these statements.
No I don’t you just keep stating this. You are having an imaginary argument in your mind by fabricating position I never stated.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Dave, your tactic of lying about my position on everything without being able to back one of your dishonest lies up about me with anything I have said is typical propaganda. It is old and you are no good at it.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 10:19 PM
I had experience with DaveS putting words in my mouth about Obama yesterday. He is divorced from reality…he has his own version of reality.
Good job, skeptics!
Carry on!
JannyMae on December 17, 2008 at 10:22 PM
So do you have an aeronautics degree to go along with your CS degree?
Have you ever flow an airplane?
Using your argument if you don’t, you have no business designing flight simulators.
F15Mech on December 17, 2008 at 10:25 PM
flown rather
F15Mech on December 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Dishonest people like Dave when backed into a corner resort to lying because they have nothing else.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM
No offense, but that was incredibly ill-informed. Not everyone knows what computer science is, so its forgiveable. Computer science is, for the most part, the intersection of mathematics and various other sciences where computation is involved. It is math applied to solving the problems of particular scientific disciplines.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 9:47 PM
What?? You are a real Brain Scientist! What a idiot! I am laughing so hard I cannot sit on my chair. What planet did you drop in from? hollowpoint is right on the money! I am amazed at person’s ignorance. You top the list!!!
sheebe on December 17, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Meanwhile, it’s snowing like a banshee in LAS VEGAS. I for one am all for a few cold, deep winters if it will help americans start to reject the spew that they’ve been fed the last few years.
bilups on December 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Hollowpoint on December 17, 2008 at 10:15 PM
What about developing a light transport model that allows accurate image synthesis of various materials (based, of course, on a deep knowledge and study of physics)?
What about developing algorithms to detect planets from images recorded by telecopse? (astronomy / physics)
What about distributed apps to allow people to scan astronomical data for alien communications from their homes? (astronomy / physics)
What about distributed apps to allow people’s computers to perform protein folding experiments from their homes? (biology / chemistry / physics)
What about software that detects, pinpoints, and measures the intensity of earthquakes? (geology / physics)
What about modeling a system of lenses for rendering purposes?
Basically, when I said that CS is “the intersection of mathematics and various other sciences where computation is involved” and then you said “Um… no”, what you meant to say was “um… actually, yeah, that’s accurate.” Science isn’t some thing where you can drop people or topics into discreet buckets. There is a continuum, where a specific topic can fall under the umbrella of biology, chemistry, math, physics, etc., all at the same time.
You mock “Fallout 3″, as though that is directly related to the topic, but Fallout 3 incorporates a TON of research into their renderer, and into the UI, and other things. There are people who spend their entire careers researching what makes user interfaces effective and why–why does our brain like this better than that–and that branch of studies is referred to as “human factors” or “human-computer interaction”.
In short, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. It’s actually pretty funny, from where I’m sitting.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 10:32 PM
I have a real good friend who is a Scientist for the Government. He has studied Global Warming for about 15 years. I could go in details, but I know what I know. Global Warming is a fear tactic. To get money from suckers that are gullible. Like the Obamabots! Dumb a** fools. It is a hoax. Al Gore should be tried and jailed for his damn lies! It is a bunch of bull crap!
sheebe on December 17, 2008 at 10:32 PM
In short, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. It’s actually pretty funny, from where I’m sitting.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 10:32 PM
You are pretty funny from where I am sitting. Where is your common sense? You sure don’t have intellect!
sheebe on December 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM
I am actually beginning to believe Dave is the one without a computer science degree since he is simply looking everything up on Wikipedia. This actually explains a lot as many people who work in computer related fields but with education or experience in others are completely clueless about the most basic things.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
F15Mech on December 17, 2008 at 10:25 PM
It depends on what you mean by designing. Usually, the software models the physics of flight as it relates to the airframe, etc… I guess I could turn around and say you have no business flying a flight simulator if you don’t have a degree in physics, but I won’t, because that would be silly. :-) Of course, a new emerging challenge is getting actual software from the aircraft to run within the simulation so that trainees are exposed to the actual PVI that they see in the aircraft.
In any case, we work directly with pilots on the design of the systems, and a lot of retired pilots get involved as well.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Lets be clear on this point. CO2 does not, cannot and never has driven any kind of climate change. Please… don’t believe me, see what top scientist have to say on the matter below:
You can view each of these scientists making the above statements HERE.
And finally we see that it is sunspot activity that is overwhelming responsible for the earth’s average changes in temperature:
Maxx on December 17, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I am actually beginning to believe Dave is the one without a computer science degree since he is simply looking everything up on Wikipedia. This actually explains a lot as many people who work in computer related fields but with education or experience in others are completely clueless about the most basic things.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
That he is. This is when I like to play stupid. Cannot believe how he is missing so much in between. I hope he doesn’t have a degree. It is scary to think that could be possible.
sheebe on December 17, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Global warming is in full effect out here in SoCal.
BallisticBob on December 17, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Meanwhile, it’s snowing like a banshee in LAS VEGAS. I for one am all for a few cold, deep winters if it will help americans start to reject the spew that they’ve been fed the last few years.
bilups on December 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Wow! I lived in Vegas for a few years. My baby brother was defensive line backer for UNLV Rebels. That is cool it is snowing there.
sheebe on December 17, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Upinak, I’ve just now read your response to my comments on page 1…I think you misread what I was saying. I was being totally sarcastic. I am a dyed in the wool AGW denier and am proud of it. I was basically saying that if ice has indeed disappeared (which I am extremely skeptical of) there are other reasons for it than AGW.
bilups on December 17, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Global warming is in full effect out here in SoCal.
BallisticBob on December 17, 2008 at 10:38 PM
LOL!!! I take it you are being sarcastic? I live in Northern Ca. Central Coast. It is so cold here! The snow was real low. Have never seen it like this.
sheebe on December 17, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Yeah, I’m faking the CS thing. I just happen to have links to Pat Hanrahan lectures handy.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 10:41 PM
I am in the engineering field and I do use computers, although I started with a slide rule, and if one tiny error is introduced in the wrong place, the bridge falls down.
Johan Klaus on December 17, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Your kidding? From outer space?
Johan Klaus on December 17, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Dave goes into full bullshit mode…
Moving math equations from paper to computer for faster processing.
Creating math equations.
LMAO! Downloading a program to process data faster.
LMAO! Downloading a program to process data faster.
Software cannot do this. Software is virtual.
Rendering on screen or in real life? Regardless this is tool.
That is nice it has little to do with science and more to do with entertainment. Though I can understand your desperation to defend what you do as “real” science and not expensive video game graphic creation.
Poptech on December 17, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Yeah, just spoofin’.
BallisticBob on December 17, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Right, but I highly doubt that you find all of the physical models incorporated into your engineering software “worthless”, which was what the guy said which prompted that comment.
DaveS on December 17, 2008 at 10:47 PM
DaveS
seti@home
folding@home
This is my favorite
That would be called a telescope. Cliff Stoll talked about that is his book “The Cuckoo’s Egg”.
He and the Professor from Cal-Tech mentioned in his book are already decades ahead of you.
F15Mech on December 17, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »