buldozr buldozr

Негров с индусами слишком много, тут я с вашими союзниками согласен Blacks with the Indians too much, then I agree with your allies

:) Ну зачем же вас расфренживать? :) Well, why did you rasfrenzhivat? Полезно знать, каким образом жулики от науки морочат головы выпускникам МГУ. It is useful to know how the thieves from science they trying to fool the head of MSU graduates.

Вы, кажется, приписываете предполагаемым жуликам некоторую направленную активность в охмурении, видимо, меня. You seem to ascribe to the alleged swindlers some directed activity ohmurenii seems to me. Не похоже, чтобы люди от науки заполонили интернет так, что мне не было куда еще податься в поиске материалов, наиболее свободных от "мусора мозга", как говорит моя дочь. There does not seem that people from science flooded the Internet so that I had no where else to go in search of materials, most free of "brain waste", says my daughter. Скорее, все наоборот. Rather, the opposite is true.

Зачем же? Why? Они не вас, а мировое правительство охмуряют, а вам бросают "кость" сопричастности к Специалистам. They do not have, and world government ohmuryayut, as you throw "bone" of ownership to a specialist. "Мы же с вами Специалисты, а не какие-нибудь Пионеры от программирования и климатологии". "We are with you experts, but not some of the pioneers of programming and climatology.

Мировое правительство - это которое в Копенгагене давеча собиралось? World government - which is in Copenhagen this morning to collect? Долго охмурять придется, ох долго... Long ohmuryat have, oh, long time ...

А мне не нужно было даже бросать "кость". And I do not have to even leave "bone". Я и так сколько угодно могу ощущать причастность к узкому кругу специалистов. I so much as you like can feel ownership of a narrow circle of specialists. Может быть, просто не стоит путать это чувство с ощущением универсальной компетентности, и иметь сколько нибудь уважения к другим специалистам, пусть и не всегда делающим умозаключения, которые вам нравятся. Maybe, just should not confuse this feeling with a sense of universal competence, and to have any degree of respect for other professionals, though not always make inferences that you like.

=охмурять придется, ох долго = ohmuryat have, oh, a long
Киотский протокол приняли же. The Kyoto Protocol adopted the same. Если бы не кризис+климатгейт+суровая зима, то и в этот раз чего-нибудь бы приняли. If not a crisis klimatgeyt + + severe winter, then this time something would have.

Вас не смущает, что компетентные универсально + пионеры составляют меньшинство по сравнению со сторонниками "антропогенного потепления"? You are not embarrassed that the competent universally + pioneers are a minority compared with the proponents of "anthropogenic warming"? Т.е. Ie получается, что спецов по климату как-то слишком много. turns out that specialists on the climate a little too much. Собственно это я к тому, что универсальную компетентность скорее можно приписать потепленцам, а их противникам может быть излишний скептицизм, который вполне объясняется суммами денег, которые хотят выудить из их карманов на "ремонт провала". Actually it's me to the fact that universal competence rather can be attributed poteplentsam, and their opponents may be excessive skepticism, which is fully explained by the amounts of money who want to dig out of their pockets to "repair the failure."

Спасибо, больше вопросов не имею. Thank you, no more questions I have. :-) :-)

адепты функционального программирования удивительно часто оказываются лютыми политическими фашистами adherents of functional programming surprisingly often lyutymi political fascists
Взглянув на топ авторов fprog.ru , сижу и тупо улыбаюсь. Looking at the top authors fprog.ru, sit and blankly smiling.

Да-да, там их есть. Yes, there they are. Я когда-то давно постил ссылку на историю правок в Википедии такого бойца, где нацизм перемежался с Haskell или чем-то в этом роде. I am a long time ago Post links to the history of edits on Wikipedia, such a fighter, where the Nazis alternated with Haskell or something like that. Потом их, вроде, из Википедии повыперли. Then they, like, Wikipedia povyperli.

По-моему, такой боец в рунете ровно один и эту фамилию мы все знаем. In my opinion, such a fighter in runet exactly one, and this name we all know. Насчёт уровня нацизма - не в курсе, а насчёт уровня его книги по хаскелю - всё очень печально. As regards the level of Nazism - not in the know, and about the level of his books on Haskell - all very sad. Просто раньше других русских учебников не было. Just before other Russian textbooks were. Щаз, вроде появился нормальный. Schaz like appeared normal.

Что, даже с computer science у него проблемы? What, even with computer science he has problems? Жаль, был бы такой замечательный контраст. It is a pity, would have been such a wonderful contrast.

Есть еще Вербицкий и один-другой полусумасшедший физик. There are Verbitsky and one or two insane physicist.

В каком смысле "даже"? In what sense "even"? У него фашизм какой-то неполноценный? He fascism some inferiority complex? С CS проблем нет</strike> не замечено, есть проблемы с "уметь объяснять". Since CS is no problem </ strike> not noticed, there are problems with the "know how to explain."

Вербитский - функциональщик?? Verbitscaya - funktsionalschik? В каком месте? Where?

"Полусумасшедший физик" - надо полагать, Луговской. "Insane physicist" - presumably Lugovskoi. Он - лиспер, а не хаскелист, и это прямо вытекает из религиозных соображений. He - lisper, not haskelist, and it stems directly from religious considerations.

Причём, проблемы с "уметь объяснять" настолько тяжёлые, что можно предположить проблемы с "чётко понимать". Moreover, problems with the "know how to explain" is so heavy that we can assume the problem with "clearly understood".

Умгум. Umgum. В какой-то момент мне передали, что он на меня обиделся, из-за того, что я говно назвал говном. At some point I was told that he offended me, because of what I call shit by shit.

А вот у Луговского проблем с "уметь объяснять", по-моему, не было. But at Lugovskoy problems with the "know how to explain, in my opinion, was not. Кстати, он ЛуговскИй. By the way, he Lugovskii.

Судя по тому, как восхищаются Луговским знающие люди, польза от его прогонов таки была. Judging by how delighted Lugovskii knowledgeable people, the benefits of his runs was still. А то, что лично я её не видел - ну так я и электрон не видел и собственный моск, и что с того. And the fact that I personally have not seen it - well, so I have not seen an electron and its own Mosca, and so what.

Если бы не Луговский, я бы о существовании ФП мог и вообще не узнать. If it were not Lugovskii, I would be the existence of FP could and did not know.

Про антиклерикалов-то? About secularists something? :) :)

Мы любим их не только за это. We love them not just for this.

Рыцари чистого разума с необходимостью должны быть антиклерикалами. Knights of pure reason with the need to be secularists. Обратное - в зависимости от особенностей психики. The opposite - depending on the characteristics of the psyche.

Ты забыл сказать, что детали архитектуры обсуждаются с привлечением широких масс и аргументами типа: "мы, американцы, как самая развитая нация в мире, должны в полный рост пользоваться UML!" You forgot to mention that the architectural details are discussed with the involvement of the broad masses and the arguments like: "we, Americans, like most developed nation in the world should be full height to use UML!"

Я отвечу чуваку из прошлой записи чуть позже. I answer dude from the last record later. На это нужно время -- он оказался не идиотом, а человеком. This takes time - it was not an idiot, but man. который врёт сознательно. which lies deliberately. (Замечу: что я ни на секунду не начинаю обсуждать выводы -- я для этого слишком мало знаю. Я обсуждаю логику и способ подачи материала.) (Note: that I never for a second begin to discuss the findings - I am for that too few know. I discuss the logic and method of presentation.)

Ты забыл сказать, что детали архитектуры обсуждаются с привлечением широких масс и аргументами типа: "мы, американцы, как самая развитая нация в мире, должны в полный рост пользоваться UML!" You forgot to mention that the architectural details are discussed with the involvement of the broad masses and the arguments like: "we, Americans, like most developed nation in the world should be full height to use UML!"

Как ясно из нашей дискуссии, акценты там несколько другие: "продукт, разработанный нашим сообществом, удовлетворяет всем требованиям для решений этого класса задач. Теперь мы, американцы (я имею в виду вас, туговатые сторонники Сары Пэлин, до остальных уже доперло), должны использовать его для решения насущной проблемы X", где X что-нибудь калибра обеспечения энергетической независимости или сокращения национального долга. It is clear from our discussions, the focus there for a few others: "a product developed by our community, meets all the requirements for making this class of problems. Now, we Americans (I mean you tugovatye supporters of Sarah Palin, the rest is up to doperlo) should use it to solve the pressing problem of X ", where X is something caliber of energy independence or reduce the national debt.
Про UML это ты неспроста? About UML is you a reason? Кто-то всерьез против его использования для того, для чего он предназначен? Someone seriously against its use for the purpose for which it was intended?

он оказался не идиотом, а человеком. he was not an idiot, but man. который врёт сознательно which lies deliberately

М-м-м, spot assessment поменялся, но остался столь же категоричным. M-m-m, spot assessment has changed, but remained equally categorical. Я не понимаю, каким образом ссылки на научные работы можно за день квалифицировать как вранье, но запасусь попкорном в ожидании продолжения дискуссии. I do not understand how the references to scientific work may one day qualify as lies, but the reserves popcorn in anticipation of further discussion.

Я не понимаю, каким образом ссылки на научные работы можно за день квалифицировать как вранье I do not understand how the references to scientific work may one day qualify as a lie

Не передёргивай. Do not juggle. Ссылки на научные работы остаются ссылками на научные работы, а сравнение принципиально несравнимых вещей остаётся сравнением принципиально несравнимых вещей. Links to scientific papers are references to scientific work, and the comparison principle of non-comparable items is essentially comparing incomparable things. Я думал, у него просто проблемы с образованием, но нет, он понимает (как он признался в комментариях к твоему посту), что с разрешением графиков есть проблема, но тем не менее пишет, что из востоковского графика следует то-то и то-то. I thought he just problems with education, but no, he understands (as he confessed in the comments on your post) that the resolution of graphics have a problem, but nevertheless wrote that because vostokovskogo schedule should be so-and-that something. Если бы он не понимал наличия проблемы с разрешением, он бы ошибался; поскольку он понимает, что она есть -- он врёт. If he did not know of a problem with the resolution, it would be wrong, because he understands what it is - he's lying.

Ещё раз замечу, что я не обсуждаю глобальные выводы. Once again, I do not discuss global findings. Я лишь утверждаю, что у тебя создала видимость "интеллектуальной гигиены" статья, по сути являющаяся тем самым, хотя и замаскированным, "мусором мозга". I am merely saying that you have created the appearance of "intellectual hygiene" article, are essentially thus, though in disguise, "brain waste".

If he did not know of a problem with the resolution, it would be wrong, because he understands what it is - he's lying. If he did not know of a problem with the resolution, it would be wrong, because he understands what it is - he's lying.

Again, google translate must be wrong. Again, google translate must be wrong. It sounds like you're calling me a liar, which is very rude. It sounds like you're calling me a liar, which is very rude. And wrong. And wrong. You brought up a question of time resolution in the Vostok data, which IS an interesting question. You brought up a question of time resolution in the Vostok data, which IS an interesting question. I showed that scientists had examined this question in several other studies, and confirmed the Vostok ice core results. I showed that scientists had examined this question in several other studies, and confirmed the Vostok ice core results. I showed that the words "off the scale" in my article link to an IPCC picture showing that many different analyses show that CO2 has risen dramatically in recent decades. I showed that the words "off the scale" in my article link to an IPCC picture showing that many different analyses show that CO2 has risen dramatically in recent decades.

It's not just the Vostok CO2 record compared to Mauna Loa record, as you seem to say when you say I can't compare incomparable things. It's not just the Vostok CO2 record compared to Mauna Loa record, as you seem to say when you say I can't compare incomparable things. There are many records, with varying resolution. There are many records, with varying resolution. They all point to the same conclusion. They all point to the same conclusion.

And all these questions have been raised already. And all these questions have been raised already. The newer research I discussed here: The newer research I discussed here:

http://buldozr.livejournal.com/368918.h http://buldozr.livejournal.com/368918.h tml?thread=659734#t659734 tml? thread = 659734 # t659734

... ... was already linked in the article in the index at "Stormcrow309 asks about potential flaws in the Vostok ice core analysis." was already linked in the article in the index at "Stormcrow309 asks about potential flaws in the Vostok ice core analysis." The links are at the bottom of that discussion. The links are at the bottom of that discussion.

http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrup http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrup t-climate-change#vostok_flaws t-climate-change # vostok_flaws

"we, Americans, like most developed nation in the world should be full height to use UML!" "we, Americans, like most developed nation in the world should be full height to use UML!"

First, I don't know what "UML" means. First, I don't know what "UML" means.

Again, you're talking about a part of the article that was aimed at Republican Americans. Again, you're talking about a part of the article that was aimed at Republican Americans. They say that abrupt climate change is a conspiracy developed by scientists. They say that abrupt climate change is a conspiracy developed by scientists. This is very similar to they way they think evolution is a conspiracy developed by scientists, to hide the "fact" that the world was created by God 6000 years ago with all species as they are today. This is very similar to they way they think evolution is a conspiracy developed by scientists, to hide the "fact" that the world was created by God 6000 years ago with all species as they are today. They think scientists say we need to reduce CO2 emissions because scientists hate America and want America to fail. They think scientists say we need to reduce CO2 emissions because scientists hate America and want America to fail.

That's simply not true, which is why I stressed that America can start helping the world by developing new technology that can improve ALL our lives. That's simply not true, which is why I stressed that America can start helping the world by developing new technology that can improve ALL our lives. We have very advanced science and technology, mostly because by coincidence World War 2 didn't destroy our country because we're isolated by 2 great oceans. We have very advanced science and technology, mostly because by coincidence World War 2 didn't destroy our country because we're isolated by 2 great oceans. This coincidence helped us advance in the late 20th century, and I'm trying very hard to harness that advancement for the good of all humanity. This coincidence helped us advance in the late 20th century, and I'm trying very hard to harness that advancement for the good of all humanity.

I answer dude from the last record later. I answer dude from the last record later. This takes time - it was not an idiot, but man. This takes time - it was not an idiot, but man. который врёт сознательно. which lies deliberately. which lies deliberately. which lies deliberately. (Note: that I never for a second begin to discuss the findings - I am for that too few know. I discuss the logic and method of presentation.) (Note: that I never for a second begin to discuss the findings - I am for that too few know. I discuss the logic and method of presentation.)

So now I'm not an idiot, merely a deliberate liar? So now I'm not an idiot, merely a deliberate liar? Is that an improvement? Is that an improvement?

Maybe you're right that my logic and method of presentation is flawed. Maybe you're right that my logic and method of presentation is flawed. But so far you've complained about things which were ALREADY ANSWERED IN THE ARTICLE. But so far you've complained about things which were ALREADY ANSWERED IN THE ARTICLE. I tried to keep a simple version of the science at the beginning, and deal with more complicated issues after the index. I tried to keep a simple version of the science at the beginning, and deal with more complicated issues after the index. You just didn't read far enough to see that I'd already answered all your objections. You just didn't read far enough to see that I'd already answered all your objections.

But even if you're right, that I need to fix the presentation, why should I listen to you? But even if you're right, that I need to fix the presentation, why should I listen to you? So far you've insulted me repeatedly. So far you've insulted me repeatedly. I haven't insulted you. I haven't insulted you. I've tried patiently to explain my field of science to you. I've tried patiently to explain my field of science to you. In response, I'm called an idiot and a liar. In response, I'm called an idiot and a liar. Do you think I like being insulted? Do you think I like being insulted?

First, I don't know what "UML" means. First, I don't know what "UML" means.

We were developing an analogy which I put forward to make the character of that would-be debate more accessible to my fellow software developers. We were developing an analogy which I put forward to make the character of that would-be debate more accessible to my fellow software developers. As if a bunch of aggressive morons come out of the woodwork and attack a software project I participate in, gratuitously demonstrating ignorance about fundamental things. As if a bunch of aggressive morons come out of the woodwork and attack a software project I participate in, gratuitously demonstrating ignorance about fundamental things. Avysk continued that such a project would engage in something of dubious use, like pushing UML usage. Avysk continued that such a project would engage in something of dubious use, like pushing UML usage. Now, UML is just a standardized graphical modeling language that's useful for software architectural documents or just whiteboard doodling (not unlike the blueprint conventions that the civic engineers use). Now, UML is just a standardized Graphical modeling language that's Useful Documents for Software architectural or just Whiteboard Doodling (not unlike the blueprint conventions that the civic engineers use). An image problem it has, is that some people and companies took the "modeling" aspect too far, and started pushing it as a tool for actual software development. An image problem it has, is that some people and companies took the "modeling" aspect too far, and started pushing it as a tool for actual software development. This didn't work well in practice. This didn't work well in practice.

As to the hoopla about the American-centric rhetoric at the beginning of your webpage, it seems that some people can't get past it without irrevocably considering the rest of the article an evangelism of American supremacy with scientific-sounding stuff thrown here and there for legitimacy. As to the hoopla about the American-centric rhetoric at the beginning of your webpage, it seems that some people can't get past it without irrevocably considering the rest of the article an evangelism of American supremacy with scientific-sounding stuff thrown here and there for legitimacy. To be honest, I didn't really pay much attention to that bit when I was reading your page, thinking something like, here's some introductory pep talk he aims at his compatriots, yadda yadda, let's get down to the beef. To be honest, I didn't really pay much attention to that bit when I was reading your page, thinking something like, here's some introductory pep talk he aims at his compatriots, yadda yadda, let's get down to the beef. It's amazing how different people can read wildly different things out of the same piece of text. It's amazing how different people can read wildly different things out of the same piece of text.

To be honest, I didn't really pay much attention to that bit when I was reading your page To be honest, I didn't really pay much attention to that bit when I was reading your page

And I do pay attention to such things, because they clearly indicate the lack of culture of scientific discussion. And I do pay attention to such things, because they clearly indicate the lack of culture of scientific discussion.

It's a page intended for laymen, not a scientific discussion. It's a page intended for laymen, not a scientific discussion.

So no "intellectual hygiene" anymore? So no "intellectual hygiene" anymore? (Referring to your first post about this topic...) (Referring to your first post about this topic ...)

Почему. Why. Если статья адресована широкой публике, в первую очередь американцам, это не значит, что приводимые там аргументы лишены научной строгости, тем более что они буквально цитируются из настоящих научных работ. If the article is addressed to the general public, especially the Americans, this does not mean that the arguments given there lack of scientific rigor, the more that they literally quoted from the present research papers. Да, я забыл предупредить, что до аргументов нужно дочитать, и это чуть дальше чем введение с некоторыми трюизмами и благоглупостями. Yes, I forgot to warn that the arguments need to finish reading, and it is a little further than the introduction of some truisms and nonsense. Я как бы рассчитывал, что этот навык у читающей меня публики еще не утрачен. I like to hope that this skill in read me the public has not yet lost. Надо добавить разъяснение в запись. You need to add an explanation in writing.

Докуда нужно дочитать, чтобы убедиться, что график с разрешением в полторы тысячи лет имеет хоть какое-то отношение к обсуждаемой проблеме? How far should finish reading, to make sure that the schedule with a resolution of fifteen hundred years has anything to do with the topic of the conference? Только не нужно отсылать меня к другим экспериментам итп -- я не спорю с научными выводами, я спорю с манерой изложения . Just do not need to send me to the other experiments and so forth - I will not argue with scientific findings, I argue with the manner of presentation. Я пока что не вижу никакого смысла в помещении того графика в статью, кроме попытки создать у читателя впечатления "ах, какой ужас". I do not see any sense in the room of the chart in the article, but an attempt to create impressions in the reader "Oh, how awful."

To begin with, it's indisputable that the Earth's climate has varied wildly in the past. To begin with, it's indisputable that the Earth's climate has varied wildly in the past. Vostok ice core data confirm that for nearly half a million years, the climate has changed cyclically. Vostok ice core data confirm that for nearly half a million years, the climate has changed cyclically. In all that time, the maximum CO2 concentration never went above 300 ppm. In all that time, the maximum CO2 concentration never went above 300 ppm.

Вот именно этот вывод из именно этого графика я и называю враньём. Precisely this conclusion from this graph is what I call lying.

Если все воспринимать, строго придерживаясь формальной логики, весь корпус результатов экспериментальной физики сплошь состоит из ложных или недоказуемых утверждений и некорректных моделей. If all accept, strict adherence to formal logic, the entire corpus of the results of experimental physics consists entirely of false or unprovable assertions and incorrect models. Тем более неформальный текст, написанный живым человеком. The more informal text, written by a living person. Как это ни может показаться странным, упрощения и умолчания не обязательно означают, что тебя хотят обмануть. It may seem may seem strange, simplification and omission does not necessarily mean that you want to cheat. В тексте дотошно объясняется, почему эти данные подтверждают гипотезу - для тех, кто оперирует дополнительными знаниями о том, как ведет себя CO ₂ в атмосфере, а не одним только графиком из интернетов - к тому же есть и более четкие независимо полученные данные, закрепляющие картину. In the text meticulously explains why these data support the hypothesis - for those who operates additional knowledge about the behavior of CO ₂ in the atmosphere, not just one schedule from the Internet - and what is more clear, regardless findings that reinforces the picture .

Если до сих пор непонятно, задача из жизни. If you are still not clear, the problem of life. Нам достоверно известно, что поезд "Лев Толстой" покинул Москву вчера в 22 и прибыл в Хельсинки сегодня в 11. We know that the train "Leo Tolstoy" left Moscow yesterday at 22 and arrived in Helsinki today at 11. Служащий РЖД, у которого на руках только эти данные, уверяет вас, что этот поезд никак не мог быть в Караганде сегодня в 3 часа ночи. Railways employee, who at the hands of only those data, I assure you that this train could not be in Karaganda today at 3 o'clock. Означает ли это, что он вам врет, поскольку доподлинно он этого не знает?

Всё это так и не отвечает на вопрос, как приведённый график связан с темой статьи. *Другие* данные и графики да, связаны.

Hello, Hello,

sorry for not answering before -- I didn't have enough time.

First I'd like to explain one thing. I'm afraid you misunderstand the point of my discussion with buldozr about your article. We are *not* discussing climate change at all. Your article was used by him as an example of something more scientific than the most materials about the climate change problem. I disagree with this completely. I also mentioned that your article is even more dangerous than the usual popular blah-blah-blah, since it tries hard to *look* like scientific -- pseudoscience in other words.

My first comment, about "idiot" (which should be translated not as "you idiot" but "as he seems to be quite stupid", probably) was based on two facts:

1. 1. You *DO* compare Vostok graph with modern measurements in your article. Or you try hard to make reader to believe that they can be compared. As those things are clearly incomparable, I thought that either it's a lack of basic education or you're not smart enough.

2. 2. You do use emotional arguments in "scientific" article. (Those part about America, I mean). As such kind of arguments is absolutely unsuitable for any kind of scientific discussion, my first impression was that it's caused by the lack of scientific culture or just stupidity.

But now, after reading your comments, I see that:

1. 1. You perfectly understand that Vostok data is not to be compared with modern measurements. Nevertheless in your article you are presenting things like some conclusions can be made from that comparison. Since you know that the logic is wrong but still pushing it on your readers -- I call you a liar. No, it's not an improvement of my first impression, it's worse. You pervert things deliberately.

2. 2. As it turns out, you understand perfectly well that your emotional arguments have nothing to do with the subject of the article and the only purpose of such arguments is to force poorly educated people to believe you. This is called manipulation, and it's also not an improvement of my first impression.

I do not understand how the person who calls himself "scientist" can push flawed logic and emotional arguments on reader without feeling any shame. This is the source of my anger; I hate pseudoscience and manipulators.

Let me say again: I do not care at all if conclusion from Vostok graph is right, if it's supported by other materials or directly contradicts them. YOU PRESENT FLAWED LOGIC TO YOUR READERS, DELIBERATELY. That's the point -- not the global warming.

You *DO* compare Vostok graph with modern measurements in your article. Or you try hard to make reader to believe that they can be compared. As those things are clearly incomparable, I thought that either it's a lack of basic education or you're not smart enough. ... ... You perfectly understand that Vostok data is not to be compared with modern measurements. Nevertheless in your article you are presenting things like some conclusions can be made from that comparison.

I understand that a simplistic Vostok-to-Mauna Loa measurement would ignore the 1500 year averaging, as you said earlier. Again, the only reason you think I'm saying (or even suggesting) this is that you didn't click on the words "off the scale" to see all the other studies that link the two measurements, and you didn't bother to notice that in the index I'd already discussed this issue.

YOU PRESENT FLAWED LOGIC TO YOUR READERS, DELIBERATELY. That's the point -- not the global warming.

No, it's not "flawed logic". Even if I hadn't already included all those nuances regarding this issue, it would still just be "simplified logic". I've dealt with this issue before:

http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrup t-climate-change#not_so_simple

I'll paraphrase: physics is HARD. Scientists need to explain the universe as a series of approximations, otherwise we'd be trying to explain quantum gravity to babies.

For instance, I can imagine you walking into a high school class and looking at their description of gravity: F=m*g. You'd scream "That's FLAWED! 'g' decreases with altitude! You're PERVERTING things deliberately! You're LYING, you should feel shame, and you seem to be QUITE STUPID!"

Then you'd walk into a college undergrad class and look at their description of gravity: F=G*m1*m2/r^2. You'd scream "That's FLAWED! It doesn't account for the recession of Mercury's orbit or the orbital decay of binary pulsars due to energy loss from gravitational waves!"

Then you'd walk into a college grad class on general relativity and look at their description of gravity, which is a tensor equation relating curvature of space-time to the stress-energy tensor. You'd scream "That's FLAWED! It blows up at singularities inside black holes and can't be quantized!"

I've tried to present a short, simple and relatively accurate summary of the science in the first three pages. Then I deal with all kinds of objections in the next 60 pages. If you're REALLY interested in the complexity, then you'd skip my article altogether and go to the primary source:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat a/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_re port_wg1_report_the_physical_science_bas is.htm

Here you'll find ~1000 pages of climate science. The only reason to read my article is to bypass (some of) that complexity with simplifications, so it fits into ~3 pages rather than ~1000.

Here's a quote from page 447 of chapter 6:

"There is no indication in the ice core record that an increase comparable in magnitude and rate to the industrial era has occurred in the past 650,000 years. The data resolution is sufficient to exclude with very high confidence a peak similar to the anthropogenic rise for the past 50,000 years for CO2..."

So, really, your problem isn't with me. It's with the IPCC and most of the climate scientists in the world. I just happen to be the only one dumb enough to listen to you repeatedly insult me. And that, I guess, is MY problem...

2. 2. As it turns out, you understand perfectly well that your emotional arguments have nothing to do with the subject of the article and the only purpose of such arguments is to force poorly educated people to believe you. This is called manipulation, and it's also not an improvement of my first impression.

I'll never know how you got that from my comments. I've said that I'm trying to counter a strong anti-science bias in the "Sarah Palin" crowd in America. I'm not trying to force "poorly educated people" to believe me; instead I'm trying to point out that I'm a human being, not a mad scientist plotting the downfall of America. (As most of them seem to think.)

But clearly there's no point in talking with you. I'll answer your insults by simply saying: Have a nice day.

You too.

why should I listen to you

You absolutely do not need to. I didn't comment your article, I didn't write you a letter and I didn't call you. I was discussing with buldozr something that is not even completely related to the subject of your article.

Calling somebody an idiot and a liar sometimes leads to this person getting back to you. За базар нужно отвечать, да.

Ты о чём? Чувак спросил, чего вдруг он должен прислушиваться к моему мнению. Я ему сказал, что он не должен :)

Про UML это я например, потому что его удивительно часто используют для того, для чего он не предназначен, наслушавшись "специалистов".

Ну, ты не путай специалистов с базара торговцев серебряными пулями из софтверной индустрии с учеными.

Это правда, погорячился.