How about the observable fact that human burning of fossil fuels has released more than twice as much CO2 as it would take to raise the atmospheric level of it from 280 ppmv in 1830 to 390 ppmv in 2011?
Without knowing how much of that CO2 was organic I don't see how you can conclude that "man is responsible for the increase in CO2" . I guess you're inferring that the earth released zero CO2 and absorbed half of that released by man? Maybe it would be more accurate to say "I don't have any clue what's happening". That would be the truth, but it would also hamper the AGW theory. No, to support your theory you must make an illogical leap.
How about the observable fact that the difference between upwelling longwave radiation at the surface and from orbit shows a clear signature of CO2 absorption of that radiation.
Without knowing how the climate works I don't see how you can conclude that increase in CO2 = increase in temperature. So what if CO2 is capturing IR radiation, that does not prove the temperature will increase. The climate is complex and without explaining how that increases the temperature you're left with pure conjecture. AGW is not my theory, and it's not my responsibility to disprove it, it's the responsibility of the proponents, and they avoid disproving it at all costs. And since nobody as of yet understands how the climate works, all you have is pure conjecture. Anything subjective (and it's all subjective since the data has to be interpreted) always ends up supporting their theory. The problem with that is a real scientist would try to disprove their own theory, these people only want to prove their theory through supporting evidence. It's not science if you constantly have a finger on the scale.
You're talking about a gas that makes up only a tiny fraction of the gasses in the atmosphere. Trying to calculate the absorption rate of CO2 and not accounting for heat radiating into space, or cloud cover, or dust or any other factors that are way more influential is just stupid. CO2 has been grasped upon because leftists see it as a tool to control people. Everything that you do produces CO2 so it's the holy grail to socialists who would just love a reason to control every aspect of your life. CO2 is not a pollutant, it does not harm anyone, plants require it to grow and grow in more abundance when it is in higher concentrations, it only makes up 0.0387% of the gasses in our atmosphere. And nobody knows the amount produced by natural sources so nobody knows how much of the CO2 in the air is from man and how much is from nature. Even if you were able to determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere there is no evidence that CO2 drives warming.
CO2 is not harmful but is about to be called a pollutant and taxed by the government. Do you think that the taxes are going to do anything but kill jobs? Do you think the government is going to "fix" something with that money? Nothing here is well understood, except the fact that the government wants more of your money to fix something they cannot fix that may or may not be a problem.
That humans are burning fossil fuels to make energy (TRUE)
That this burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere (TRUE)
That the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising (TRUE)
That the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not accounted for by natural causes *Problem 1
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore will cause temperature rise in the atmosphere *Problem 2
That the global temperatures are rising (OK)
That the temperature rise is causing the climate of the earth to alter (OK)
I don't think you understand what Falsifiability is. And I've taken the time to explain it because I really want you to understand it.
Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion or a theory is the logical possibility that the assertion (or the theory) can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that it in principle can be disproven by observation.
The two items I pointed out on your list cannot be disproven by observation because they are unobservable. If they cannot be observed they cannot be falsified. Because the corner stone of the theory is unobservable the theory is not falsifiable. There is just as much proof of ghosts existing. You just can't see them, but they must be there. All we need is a device that will allow us to see the ghosts then, if the ghosts actually show up, I can prove (by falsification) that ghosts do exist. So all you need is a device that can measure the organic C02 output of the natural planet, observe the static C02 output from organic sources and the rise of the total C02 output, and you'll have a solid theory, otherwise, it's just a weak unproven theory that actually has no evidence to support its claims.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
#4 in that list is completely ignored by AGW proponents. The importance of step 4 cannot be understated because that is what separates hard science from soft science (or pseudoscience). The only thing that can disprove their theory is conveniently beyond the scope of what man can know. Because there is no way to prove or disprove the assertion that man is creating too much C02 relative to natural process it cannot be falsified. As I said, that's the linchpin in the whole AGW argument and it is completely unscientific.
Besides this baseless assertion there is no other proof that man is driving the climate higher though C02 release. That's called "weak inductive logic" and is the sort you should stay away from when formulating a theory. Here's a question, how about you show some evidence that backs that up? How much C02 is released from all the volcanoes of the world? Forest fires? Nobody knows. Then how are the estimates made? I will let you draw your own conclusions.
Problem 1) It cannot be known using the tools currently available how much C02 the earth organically creates. Nobody has a clue how much C02 is organically released because we have no way to measure it. We don't even know how many volcanoes are in the oceans or how much biomass is naturally burned much less how much C02 any of thes
Well there's another universally accepted and widely used word you can add to your vocabulary. Falsifiability is a noun drawn from the word
Falsifiable. Maybe you should do a Google search before you stick you foot in your mouth.
From: Dictionary.com > Falsifiable
Origin: 1400–50; late Middle English falsifien
Related forms
falsifiable, adjective
falsifiability, noun
falsification [fawl-suh-fi-key-shuhn] Show IPA, noun
falsifier, noun
nonfalsifiable, adjective
unfalsifiable, adjective
unfalsified, adjective
More importantly, you already knew the word was a valid and widely used word, but for some reason disregarded the link I already gave you. In the link it says
Falsifiability has even been used in court decisions in this context as a key deciding factor to distinguish genuine science from the nonscientific.
Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion or a theory is the logical possibility that the assertion (or the theory) can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that it in principle can be disproven by observation.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." —Mark Twain
I'm not basing my opinion on one statement. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that the theory cannot be falsified. I used the quote to illustrate that at least some of the pro AGW scientists have no interest in using the scientific method and are so biased towards proving their own theories true that they aren't willing to allow it come under scrutiny. If a theory can't stand scrutiny from basic logic why defend it? Read about AGW more, find out how it can be falsified and prove me wrong - or - you may just have to admit that this is a non-scientific theory.
Easy, you observe a result that contradict the theory's expectation.
How exactly do you falsify the "Darwin Theory of Evolution"
Find a 50,000,000 year old modern human skeleton.
or how do you falsify the "Laws of Gravity"?
Throw a rock in the air - and it doesn't come down.
Of course, those have been tried and failed to falsify, so don't go breaking any windows trying to "falsify the Laws of Gravity". Which coincidentally has been falsified many times in the history of science. Ptolemy then Copernicus then Newton then Einstein each falsified the previous scientist's work making the obsolete work, well, obsolete. You know what? Go read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (or at least the wiki) and get your paradigm on.
I only cared about the statement because it said to me that this scientist is afraid of having his data falsified.. That's a big reason by science must be reproducibleespecially by those who are skeptical of the theory. Now, explain to me how AGW can be falsified - or admit it's nonscientific. Falsifiability
Falsifiability has even been used in court decisions in this context as a key deciding factor to distinguish genuine science from the nonscientific.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
The quote says "I'm not interested in having you try and disprove my data." If ANY part can be disproved - BY ANYONE - it's false, it must be reworked to fix ANY errors - not just the ones that proponents of they theory find. Just because someone was getting paid by someone you don't like doesn't make it any less false either! This "scientists rejecting scientific method" isn't anything new: imagine Copernicus trying to falsify Ptolemy's data! So let's deal in pure logic. I'm asking how AGW can be falsified. If it cannot, it is not science and that's really the end of the discussion for me.
Falsifiability has even been used in court decisions in this context as a key deciding factor to distinguish genuine science from the nonscientific.
I'm not questioning what the "rightists use to make their arguments", I don't care at all about what they say. I'm asking how AGW can be falsified. If it cannot, it is not science, pure and simple.
Falsifiability has even been used in court decisions in this context as a key deciding factor to distinguish genuine science from the nonscientific.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
Falsifiability is an important concept within the creation–evolution controversy, where proponents of both sides claim that Popper developed falsifiability to denote ideas as unscientific or pseudoscientific and use it to make arguments against the views of the respective other side. The question of what can legitimately be called science and what cannot be legitimately called science is of major importance in this debate because US law says that only science may be taught in public school science classes. Thus, the controversy raises the issue whether creationistic ideas, or at least some of them, or at least in some form, may be legitimately called science. Falsifiability has even been used in court decisions in this context as a key deciding factor to distinguish genuine science from the nonscientific.
Again, emphasis added. By declaring that it's not unnecessary to have falsifiable theories you align yourself with "creationists". Is that really where you want to be? It's certainly not real science.
I was on the fence on AGW until I read that, now I can only conclude that AGW is a fraud. AGW cannot be falsified and is therefore not science. I'm certain I'll be modded flamebait or troll or whatever, but that inconvenient fact remains, AGW cannot be falsified. When the rules of science changed to allow people to "prove" things without even trying to falsify them? The way I learned the scientific method is you must try to falsify, not present anecdotal data to "prove your theory". If your theory cannot be falsified than you're not even dealing with a scientific theory.
The lies must stop! This is not science! It lessens the impact that real scientific research will have on the general public because now they'll say "oh ya, just like global warming" and science will begin to loose the respect it deserves.
It's a version of the The Broken Window Fallacy on two levels. You're taking money from the public in the form of taxes that would have otherwise been spent on something besides whatever the government has planned. It might be that someone was doing something more important with their own money than this weeks boondoggle. But now we'll never know.
The other way it's like the The Broken Window Fallacy is that it's taking from the overall research pie and assigning it to something that it would not have otherwise been researching. And so what if "they say it's worth researching" - who the hell are they? What the hell gives them the right to piss away everyone's money on whatever their political agenda demands? And if you subscribe to the idea that these new "green initiatives" aren't politically driven then you're being intellectually dishonest. If this thing is driven by politics that means it's not driven by science.
The science overwhelmingly says nuclear, but the EPA has prevented any new nuclear plants in the last 3 decades. What do you think that does to the cost of all energy products? I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir on nuclear, but step back and see the fetters the government places on us before we celebrate some yet-to-be-misspent taxpayer money. Every year dozens of people die in the installation and maintenance of solar panels and wind generators, that may not mean much to you, but I'm sure it means quite a lot to the people who knew the dozens of dead people and absolutely nothing to the dead person. Meanwhile nuclear has caused zero deaths in its history in this country - but somehow nuclear is unsafe and we need to devoting more resources to solar? What a load of shit! All I see is the government always in the way and what if any solutions they create quickly fall victim to corruption, nepotism and the law of unintended consequences. Rather than dictating from Washington D.C. what all us should be doing, we would be much better off left to our own devices.
Again the government is coming in and choosing winners and losers. Why can't I focus on cold fusion? Why can't I focus on geothermal? What research does the DOE have that tells it that solar is where we should be concentrating our research? (none) But then there is no metric for this decision other than "Obama like solar" which is about as vapid as any other "green program" I've seen come out of the DOE. I wonder if it ever occurred to the well meaning busy-bodies in the government that the professionals in their respective industries might just know a little bit more than they do? And why 6? Why not 3? Shit why not 1? I mean, if there's no real metric for the demand other than "it would be cheaper" why not demand it be a lot cheaper?
While were at it why don't we demand that all cars get 1000mpg? Oh it can't be done with existing technology you say? You're just thinking inside the box! If you think outside the box then you'll see it's a reasonable demand. I'm not sure what box they're referring to, maybe it has to do with the social security lock box. Oh I get it. Think outside the box! Pff - I wasn't thinking outside the box!. I now understand!:.75 on every dollar contributed to social security is immediately borrowed by the government and.25 goes to current recipients, so: Think about all of your money we're taking outside of the social security lock box and spending it stupid ass bull shit!
In fact budget cuts are a very potent motivator for public sector bodies to get more productivity out of the same resources, and that shows.
You didn't look up baseline spending. The DMV doesn't get budget cuts. During this economic downturn everyone is tighting their belts, except the government which has spent 33% more than it did just a decade ago.
I'll figure out the lose vs. loose and you figure out economics 101. If you can't figure out why the public sector bodies improve I think you have a little more analysis to do. I'll help you out here: the only reason the DMV improved is because of legislative action, not a sudden interest in customer service. There were angry voters at the gates with torches and legislators put their nose to the grindstone. Not the DMV. And so what if DMV has improved their service - it still sucks when compared to a private company. The whole "service" the DMV provides is nothing but a cash cow for state government, a non-service, so their goal is to take your money and give you a card, pretty simple, and for this it takes 20 minutes of waiting in line because they didn't have enough wits to open more windows. Or maybe the problem is that they can't afford to hire anymore civil servants because they get paid at a base rate almost 2x what their private sector counterparts get paid, once again proving that the government is inefficient and couldn't care less where your money goes.
The more you analyze this the more obvious it will become to you that the government can't be as efficient as a private company because they are the government. Do you think a private company needs permission from the shareholders to fire a worthless employee? (no) Have you ever heard of how difficult it is to fire a tenured teacher at a public school? School systems usually just put bad teachers on permanent paid leave of absence rather than try to fire them - some even just let them continue to teach. Does that sound like good customer service? I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
The only problem with your analogy is that there are literally thousands of private banks to choose from. If you don't like the service at BoA than go elsewhere, I used to be a BoA customer until they lost a few deposits, now I use another bank. As far as the DMV goes, I think 20 minutes is great, for the government, for private sector, that's an F+. The people who work for the DMV know you can't go anywhere else so there is no incentive to please you, they serve you at their leisure, and it shows. If a private business treated its customers like the DMV does it either has the monopoly on some product, like the DMV, or is hemorrhaging customers and won't stay in business long.
All commerce is created to please the needs of the customer, when the needs of the customer are ignored than the business will loose its customers to competing businesses and eventually change or fold. Everyone makes up their own mind, the bank that offers the best services at the lowest cost (i.e.: the most efficient) will gain the most new customers. BoA has a lot of old customers and is loosing more than it is gaining. Other banks and credit unions are gaining more than they are loosing. BoA sees this trend and they will either change their tune or go out of business like so many other businesses before them. Can you say the same for the DMV?
If they catch terrorists that proves they are working well. Which they didn't. So no proof of success there. They did however allow a half dozen to slip by and a few to detonate their bombs on the plane. So there's a priori proof of a 100% failure rate. And by the metric used to measure how successful a government agency is I would say the 100% failure rate for the TSA is an A+. I'll bet this abject failure is even rewarded with a budget increase.
There is no profit shark at the government, they have no interest in turning a profit, being efficient or saving money, if it's not efficient so what? The government can't go broke they just tax, print, borrow. Look up "base line spending" if you don't agree. The government has trillions of dollars in debt and is taking in less tax revenue but in the last 5 years has increased spending by 33%. If a private business behaves like the government for too long it will cease to exist.
If a private company had a 401K plan like the government has social security, and the CEO borrowed money from the 401Ks like the government constantly borrows from SS, the CEOs would be in federal prison for a very long time. The government has no metric for success, they do stuff just because. It doesn't matter if people actually benefit from what the government does, they get paid anyway. Not the case with private business. It doesn't matter if it's a total abject failure that kills people and brings misery, it's still "a good thing" because the government is doing it, the "war on drugs" is a wonderful example of this. If it took too long for the pizza to get to your house do you get your money back? (yes) If it took too long for the cops to get to your house when you dial 911 do you get your taxes back? (no). If a private person or business wrongs you there is recourse in the courts. If the government wrongs you, you're just fucked (sovereign immunity)
A good web author knows how the search engine works with their site. Things like overuse of a keyword, not enough content or excessive boiler plate content will cause your site to rank low. While things like canonical urls, matching meta description with page content, lots of diverse keywords in narrative format and links pointing to pages that contain the link text in prominent locations all will help your position in a search engine.
I'm sure there are some SEO companies that sell people bullshit, but that story is as old as time, you'll find con artists in every business. This is not "hacking" or "spamming" or even gaming the search engine. It's presenting a semantically correct page that both humans and spiders can understand well. You can get a good rank without doing anything nefarious. Just from my own searching, as a non-author, I can see nefarious stuff rarely works and when it does it's fleeting.
Why just an arm? Why only the physical world? Why not just a basic QWERTY keyboard. Once your brain gets the clue that you're controlling what you see it, and the control surface is fluid enough, it will feel like an extension of your own body. It's called Perceptual adaptation.
That's just false. The only reason that Apple has penetration into the school system is because some artsy-fartsy ex-teacher thought "our kids deserve the best" and Apple is held up as "The Best" even though this is demonstrably false.
The current generation of teachers, at least those teaching on a Apple, are doing a disservice to their students by teaching them how to use a computer that probably isn't the computer they'll be using in the real world. Your tired platitude about "the media running on Apple" aside an overwhelming majority of computers are going to be PCs.. Now even if these teachers assumed "Every one of my students are going work with the media" there's still a great chance that they won't be working with Apple computers.
Overall Apple's market share of every segment of the PC market is tiny when you combine all the PC manufactures. So now our emerging students will instructed on how to use a computer which by most Apple fan accounts is "so easy it doesn't require any instruction" even though these computers barely make up 8% of the computers used in business. If you've ever been to siggraph (and I have) you'll know that Apple is just a small player in the graphics game. There may be a few production shops that only use Apple, but for each one you should find about 10 that use PCs. If you're running a business and you're asked which to buy an Apple or a PC, you're told they do exactly the same thing but one costs twice the price of the other which do you think a majority of business will choose? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question - 90%+ choose PC, that's just a fact. If you can find a citation about how Apple absolutely owns the media (or graphics) segment like you're suggesting I'd be interested to read it, because I looked and I can't find one.
People who are not fans of Apple generally dislike the same thing. #1 Apple is deceptive, they lie about their competition and their own capabilities. (Pllleeese ask for a citation, I'm just dying to give you a bunch) #2 Apple is restrictive for no good reason. (Why can't I put OSX on any PC like I can put FreeBSD on any PC? Oh, because Apple wants to waste my money on their hardware. Why do I need a $500 box to hookup my Apple to my TV when PCs do it without a box and for free? Again, Apple feels the need to make you grab your socks.) #3 The people who use and defend Apple are generally brainwashed morons who parrot the lies Apple made in the #1 and cannot be argued with because they already know that Apple is better. When asked for citation they'll say "everyone knows that". When confronted with citations that contradict their belief they attack the messenger or change the subject (it's called cognitive dissonance). I for one, wish logic would be the prevailing factor, but Apple's whole operation relies on deception. Apple: "We own the graphics segment - who are you going to believe us or your lying eyes?"
I could have a actual time machine that diamonds pour out of any time you press a button, but if I told an Apple fan it had a PC in it they would claim that Apple can do it better - and without citation or logic. So if it seems like some people are angry with Apple and Apple users, it's a well deserved anger. I could go on but this is already too long.
You should change your name to Pol Pot.. I can only hope someone in your family wares a suit and that you show them your comment about how you wish they would be lined up against a wall and shot for no apparent reason.
And if you're joking: I can only hope someone in your family wares a suit and that you show them your comment about how you joked about how they would be lined up against a wall and shot for no apparent reason.
I'm pretty sure Apple nemesis Adobe made that cool stuff. And it's on a PC too. And 64bit versions will only be available on PC thanks to the lovely group of people at Apple flipping the technological bird at Adobe.
He is clearing stating that he lacks confidence in the rest of what he's saying, not that everything that he says must be false. If you had a broken clock, it would still be right twice a day.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - False in one thing, false in all.
Frankly, I've seen this problem in action. Take a.NET developer out of Visual Studio and they flounder. They don't understand what the tool is doing for them. So, without the tool, they are lost. Another name for them is "script kiddies".
Slashdot Mirror
Without knowing how much of that CO2 was organic I don't see how you can conclude that "man is responsible for the increase in CO2" . I guess you're inferring that the earth released zero CO2 and absorbed half of that released by man? Maybe it would be more accurate to say "I don't have any clue what's happening". That would be the truth, but it would also hamper the AGW theory. No, to support your theory you must make an illogical leap.
Without knowing how the climate works I don't see how you can conclude that increase in CO2 = increase in temperature. So what if CO2 is capturing IR radiation, that does not prove the temperature will increase. The climate is complex and without explaining how that increases the temperature you're left with pure conjecture. AGW is not my theory, and it's not my responsibility to disprove it, it's the responsibility of the proponents, and they avoid disproving it at all costs. And since nobody as of yet understands how the climate works, all you have is pure conjecture. Anything subjective (and it's all subjective since the data has to be interpreted) always ends up supporting their theory. The problem with that is a real scientist would try to disprove their own theory, these people only want to prove their theory through supporting evidence. It's not science if you constantly have a finger on the scale.
You're talking about a gas that makes up only a tiny fraction of the gasses in the atmosphere. Trying to calculate the absorption rate of CO2 and not accounting for heat radiating into space, or cloud cover, or dust or any other factors that are way more influential is just stupid. CO2 has been grasped upon because leftists see it as a tool to control people. Everything that you do produces CO2 so it's the holy grail to socialists who would just love a reason to control every aspect of your life. CO2 is not a pollutant, it does not harm anyone, plants require it to grow and grow in more abundance when it is in higher concentrations, it only makes up 0.0387% of the gasses in our atmosphere. And nobody knows the amount produced by natural sources so nobody knows how much of the CO2 in the air is from man and how much is from nature. Even if you were able to determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere there is no evidence that CO2 drives warming.
CO2 is not harmful but is about to be called a pollutant and taxed by the government. Do you think that the taxes are going to do anything but kill jobs? Do you think the government is going to "fix" something with that money? Nothing here is well understood, except the fact that the government wants more of your money to fix something they cannot fix that may or may not be a problem.
That humans are burning fossil fuels to make energy (TRUE)
That this burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere (TRUE)
That the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising (TRUE)
That the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not accounted for by natural causes *Problem 1
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore will cause temperature rise in the atmosphere *Problem 2
That the global temperatures are rising (OK)
That the temperature rise is causing the climate of the earth to alter (OK)
I don't think you understand what Falsifiability is. And I've taken the time to explain it because I really want you to understand it.
The two items I pointed out on your list cannot be disproven by observation because they are unobservable. If they cannot be observed they cannot be falsified. Because the corner stone of the theory is unobservable the theory is not falsifiable. There is just as much proof of ghosts existing. You just can't see them, but they must be there. All we need is a device that will allow us to see the ghosts then, if the ghosts actually show up, I can prove (by falsification) that ghosts do exist. So all you need is a device that can measure the organic C02 output of the natural planet, observe the static C02 output from organic sources and the rise of the total C02 output, and you'll have a solid theory, otherwise, it's just a weak unproven theory that actually has no evidence to support its claims.
This is the hypothetico-deductive model of the scientific method.
#4 in that list is completely ignored by AGW proponents. The importance of step 4 cannot be understated because that is what separates hard science from soft science (or pseudoscience). The only thing that can disprove their theory is conveniently beyond the scope of what man can know. Because there is no way to prove or disprove the assertion that man is creating too much C02 relative to natural process it cannot be falsified. As I said, that's the linchpin in the whole AGW argument and it is completely unscientific.
Besides this baseless assertion there is no other proof that man is driving the climate higher though C02 release. That's called "weak inductive logic" and is the sort you should stay away from when formulating a theory. Here's a question, how about you show some evidence that backs that up? How much C02 is released from all the volcanoes of the world? Forest fires? Nobody knows. Then how are the estimates made? I will let you draw your own conclusions.
Problem 1) It cannot be known using the tools currently available how much C02 the earth organically creates. Nobody has a clue how much C02 is organically released because we have no way to measure it. We don't even know how many volcanoes are in the oceans or how much biomass is naturally burned much less how much C02 any of thes
From: Dictionary.com > Falsifiable
More importantly, you already knew the word was a valid and widely used word, but for some reason disregarded the link I already gave you. In the link it says
So ya, Falsifiability, is actually a requirement of the Scientific Method.
Falsifiability <- In our context
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." —Mark Twain
I'm not basing my opinion on one statement. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that the theory cannot be falsified. I used the quote to illustrate that at least some of the pro AGW scientists have no interest in using the scientific method and are so biased towards proving their own theories true that they aren't willing to allow it come under scrutiny. If a theory can't stand scrutiny from basic logic why defend it? Read about AGW more, find out how it can be falsified and prove me wrong - or - you may just have to admit that this is a non-scientific theory.
Find a 50,000,000 year old modern human skeleton.
Throw a rock in the air - and it doesn't come down.
Of course, those have been tried and failed to falsify, so don't go breaking any windows trying to "falsify the Laws of Gravity". Which coincidentally has been falsified many times in the history of science. Ptolemy then Copernicus then Newton then Einstein each falsified the previous scientist's work making the obsolete work, well, obsolete. You know what? Go read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (or at least the wiki) and get your paradigm on.
Falsifiability
Scientific method
Scientific_method
Falsifiability
Scientific_method
Falsifiability
I added emphasis to the part in question. Here's more on Falsifiability.
Again, emphasis added. By declaring that it's not unnecessary to have falsifiable theories you align yourself with "creationists". Is that really where you want to be? It's certainly not real science.
I was on the fence on AGW until I read that, now I can only conclude that AGW is a fraud. AGW cannot be falsified and is therefore not science. I'm certain I'll be modded flamebait or troll or whatever, but that inconvenient fact remains, AGW cannot be falsified. When the rules of science changed to allow people to "prove" things without even trying to falsify them? The way I learned the scientific method is you must try to falsify, not present anecdotal data to "prove your theory". If your theory cannot be falsified than you're not even dealing with a scientific theory.
The lies must stop! This is not science! It lessens the impact that real scientific research will have on the general public because now they'll say "oh ya, just like global warming" and science will begin to loose the respect it deserves.
Ever hear of buying market share?
It's a version of the The Broken Window Fallacy on two levels. You're taking money from the public in the form of taxes that would have otherwise been spent on something besides whatever the government has planned. It might be that someone was doing something more important with their own money than this weeks boondoggle. But now we'll never know.
The other way it's like the The Broken Window Fallacy is that it's taking from the overall research pie and assigning it to something that it would not have otherwise been researching. And so what if "they say it's worth researching" - who the hell are they? What the hell gives them the right to piss away everyone's money on whatever their political agenda demands? And if you subscribe to the idea that these new "green initiatives" aren't politically driven then you're being intellectually dishonest. If this thing is driven by politics that means it's not driven by science.
The science overwhelmingly says nuclear, but the EPA has prevented any new nuclear plants in the last 3 decades. What do you think that does to the cost of all energy products? I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir on nuclear, but step back and see the fetters the government places on us before we celebrate some yet-to-be-misspent taxpayer money. Every year dozens of people die in the installation and maintenance of solar panels and wind generators, that may not mean much to you, but I'm sure it means quite a lot to the people who knew the dozens of dead people and absolutely nothing to the dead person. Meanwhile nuclear has caused zero deaths in its history in this country - but somehow nuclear is unsafe and we need to devoting more resources to solar? What a load of shit! All I see is the government always in the way and what if any solutions they create quickly fall victim to corruption, nepotism and the law of unintended consequences. Rather than dictating from Washington D.C. what all us should be doing, we would be much better off left to our own devices.
Again the government is coming in and choosing winners and losers. Why can't I focus on cold fusion? Why can't I focus on geothermal? What research does the DOE have that tells it that solar is where we should be concentrating our research? (none) But then there is no metric for this decision other than "Obama like solar" which is about as vapid as any other "green program" I've seen come out of the DOE. I wonder if it ever occurred to the well meaning busy-bodies in the government that the professionals in their respective industries might just know a little bit more than they do? And why 6? Why not 3? Shit why not 1? I mean, if there's no real metric for the demand other than "it would be cheaper" why not demand it be a lot cheaper?
.75 on every dollar contributed to social security is immediately borrowed by the government and .25 goes to current recipients, so: Think about all of your money we're taking outside of the social security lock box and spending it stupid ass bull shit!
While were at it why don't we demand that all cars get 1000mpg? Oh it can't be done with existing technology you say? You're just thinking inside the box! If you think outside the box then you'll see it's a reasonable demand. I'm not sure what box they're referring to, maybe it has to do with the social security lock box. Oh I get it. Think outside the box! Pff - I wasn't thinking outside the box!. I now understand!:
Required reading:
I, Pencil: My Family Tree
The Law by Frederick Bastiat
You didn't look up baseline spending. The DMV doesn't get budget cuts. During this economic downturn everyone is tighting their belts, except the government which has spent 33% more than it did just a decade ago.
I'll figure out the lose vs. loose and you figure out economics 101. If you can't figure out why the public sector bodies improve I think you have a little more analysis to do. I'll help you out here: the only reason the DMV improved is because of legislative action, not a sudden interest in customer service. There were angry voters at the gates with torches and legislators put their nose to the grindstone. Not the DMV. And so what if DMV has improved their service - it still sucks when compared to a private company. The whole "service" the DMV provides is nothing but a cash cow for state government, a non-service, so their goal is to take your money and give you a card, pretty simple, and for this it takes 20 minutes of waiting in line because they didn't have enough wits to open more windows. Or maybe the problem is that they can't afford to hire anymore civil servants because they get paid at a base rate almost 2x what their private sector counterparts get paid, once again proving that the government is inefficient and couldn't care less where your money goes.
The more you analyze this the more obvious it will become to you that the government can't be as efficient as a private company because they are the government. Do you think a private company needs permission from the shareholders to fire a worthless employee? (no) Have you ever heard of how difficult it is to fire a tenured teacher at a public school? School systems usually just put bad teachers on permanent paid leave of absence rather than try to fire them - some even just let them continue to teach. Does that sound like good customer service? I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
The only problem with your analogy is that there are literally thousands of private banks to choose from. If you don't like the service at BoA than go elsewhere, I used to be a BoA customer until they lost a few deposits, now I use another bank. As far as the DMV goes, I think 20 minutes is great, for the government, for private sector, that's an F+. The people who work for the DMV know you can't go anywhere else so there is no incentive to please you, they serve you at their leisure, and it shows. If a private business treated its customers like the DMV does it either has the monopoly on some product, like the DMV, or is hemorrhaging customers and won't stay in business long.
All commerce is created to please the needs of the customer, when the needs of the customer are ignored than the business will loose its customers to competing businesses and eventually change or fold. Everyone makes up their own mind, the bank that offers the best services at the lowest cost (i.e.: the most efficient) will gain the most new customers. BoA has a lot of old customers and is loosing more than it is gaining. Other banks and credit unions are gaining more than they are loosing. BoA sees this trend and they will either change their tune or go out of business like so many other businesses before them. Can you say the same for the DMV?
Read this short essay,I, Pencil: My Family Tree on economics. And of course read The Law by Frederick Bastiat for a real lesson if you haven't done so already.
If they catch terrorists that proves they are working well. Which they didn't. So no proof of success there. They did however allow a half dozen to slip by and a few to detonate their bombs on the plane. So there's a priori proof of a 100% failure rate. And by the metric used to measure how successful a government agency is I would say the 100% failure rate for the TSA is an A+. I'll bet this abject failure is even rewarded with a budget increase.
There is no profit shark at the government, they have no interest in turning a profit, being efficient or saving money, if it's not efficient so what? The government can't go broke they just tax, print, borrow. Look up "base line spending" if you don't agree. The government has trillions of dollars in debt and is taking in less tax revenue but in the last 5 years has increased spending by 33%. If a private business behaves like the government for too long it will cease to exist.
If a private company had a 401K plan like the government has social security, and the CEO borrowed money from the 401Ks like the government constantly borrows from SS, the CEOs would be in federal prison for a very long time. The government has no metric for success, they do stuff just because. It doesn't matter if people actually benefit from what the government does, they get paid anyway. Not the case with private business. It doesn't matter if it's a total abject failure that kills people and brings misery, it's still "a good thing" because the government is doing it, the "war on drugs" is a wonderful example of this. If it took too long for the pizza to get to your house do you get your money back? (yes) If it took too long for the cops to get to your house when you dial 911 do you get your taxes back? (no). If a private person or business wrongs you there is recourse in the courts. If the government wrongs you, you're just fucked (sovereign immunity)
So ya, huge difference.
A good web author knows how the search engine works with their site. Things like overuse of a keyword, not enough content or excessive boiler plate content will cause your site to rank low. While things like canonical urls, matching meta description with page content, lots of diverse keywords in narrative format and links pointing to pages that contain the link text in prominent locations all will help your position in a search engine.
I'm sure there are some SEO companies that sell people bullshit, but that story is as old as time, you'll find con artists in every business. This is not "hacking" or "spamming" or even gaming the search engine. It's presenting a semantically correct page that both humans and spiders can understand well. You can get a good rank without doing anything nefarious. Just from my own searching, as a non-author, I can see nefarious stuff rarely works and when it does it's fleeting.
When I do SEO on a site I use a program like http://www.seoengine.com/ to tell me what's wrong with my page. More good info on SEO can be found at Google webmaster blog And A bunch of great videos from the Google guys (Tons about SEO):.
Why just an arm? Why only the physical world? Why not just a basic QWERTY keyboard. Once your brain gets the clue that you're controlling what you see it, and the control surface is fluid enough, it will feel like an extension of your own body. It's called Perceptual adaptation.
That's just false. The only reason that Apple has penetration into the school system is because some artsy-fartsy ex-teacher thought "our kids deserve the best" and Apple is held up as "The Best" even though this is demonstrably false.
The current generation of teachers, at least those teaching on a Apple, are doing a disservice to their students by teaching them how to use a computer that probably isn't the computer they'll be using in the real world. Your tired platitude about "the media running on Apple" aside an overwhelming majority of computers are going to be PCs.. Now even if these teachers assumed "Every one of my students are going work with the media" there's still a great chance that they won't be working with Apple computers.
Overall Apple's market share of every segment of the PC market is tiny when you combine all the PC manufactures. So now our emerging students will instructed on how to use a computer which by most Apple fan accounts is "so easy it doesn't require any instruction" even though these computers barely make up 8% of the computers used in business. If you've ever been to siggraph (and I have) you'll know that Apple is just a small player in the graphics game. There may be a few production shops that only use Apple, but for each one you should find about 10 that use PCs. If you're running a business and you're asked which to buy an Apple or a PC, you're told they do exactly the same thing but one costs twice the price of the other which do you think a majority of business will choose? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question - 90%+ choose PC, that's just a fact. If you can find a citation about how Apple absolutely owns the media (or graphics) segment like you're suggesting I'd be interested to read it, because I looked and I can't find one.
People who are not fans of Apple generally dislike the same thing. #1 Apple is deceptive, they lie about their competition and their own capabilities. (Pllleeese ask for a citation, I'm just dying to give you a bunch) #2 Apple is restrictive for no good reason. (Why can't I put OSX on any PC like I can put FreeBSD on any PC? Oh, because Apple wants to waste my money on their hardware. Why do I need a $500 box to hookup my Apple to my TV when PCs do it without a box and for free? Again, Apple feels the need to make you grab your socks.) #3 The people who use and defend Apple are generally brainwashed morons who parrot the lies Apple made in the #1 and cannot be argued with because they already know that Apple is better. When asked for citation they'll say "everyone knows that". When confronted with citations that contradict their belief they attack the messenger or change the subject (it's called cognitive dissonance). I for one, wish logic would be the prevailing factor, but Apple's whole operation relies on deception. Apple: "We own the graphics segment - who are you going to believe us or your lying eyes?"
I could have a actual time machine that diamonds pour out of any time you press a button, but if I told an Apple fan it had a PC in it they would claim that Apple can do it better - and without citation or logic. So if it seems like some people are angry with Apple and Apple users, it's a well deserved anger. I could go on but this is already too long.
You should change your name to Pol Pot.. I can only hope someone in your family wares a suit and that you show them your comment about how you wish they would be lined up against a wall and shot for no apparent reason.
And if you're joking: I can only hope someone in your family wares a suit and that you show them your comment about how you joked about how they would be lined up against a wall and shot for no apparent reason.
I'm pretty sure Apple nemesis Adobe made that cool stuff. And it's on a PC too. And 64bit versions will only be available on PC thanks to the lovely group of people at Apple flipping the technological bird at Adobe.
If given enough time.
He is clearing stating that he lacks confidence in the rest of what he's saying, not that everything that he says must be false. If you had a broken clock, it would still be right twice a day.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - False in one thing, false in all.