And I repeat that he, and you, are both very much mistaken. There were 2 exchanges going on between he and I, in different threads (which he started, not me).
I clearly explained that the link to ioppublishing.org was an editing mistake, and it was only the other link I was referring to. The other link -- the one that was not an acknowledged editing mistake -- was in fact the same page he linked to, and the source of the quote I posted.
If that was lost in the confusion to other readers between the 2 threads, that was his fault, not mine. This whole exchange has been a rather blatant attempt to troll me.
You can see that for yourself if you go back up to his original comment, then read further down and follow both threads.
Individual speech is the thing protected by the Constitution. Organized pressure to fire somebody from their job is not free speech, it's mob rule.
There is a difference. The line might be a bit gray, but it's there.
So let's say you were an atheist. (I'm not saying you are, it's just hypothetical.) And because of your atheism, you believe that John Smith should not be able to post monuments to Jesus on government property. (Again just hypothetical.)
Lots of people would consider that to be freedom of religion. You might disagree. So in those circumstances, would you say it was socially acceptable to post a massive internet campaign to insult and disparage John Smith, boycott the company he just happens to work for, and demand that he be fired?
I am just curious what your answer to that would be.
There were a few "Megacorps", even then. Like the East India company. And just like today, the megacorps of the day got special treatment from their respective governments.
That's one of the things we fought a war to get away from.
The problem is, what you're saying here is actually "enforcing your rules on other nations". You want the rule to be "I'm free to do whatever I want", which is basically the American ruleset. You are trying to enforce that on Europe, where the rule is "no, actually, that hurts someone else, you can't do it".
This is just plain nonsense.
I'm saying: create a hub where Europe and America can connect. America is in control of its branch of the hub. Europe is in charge of its branch of the hub. Neither is controlling the other.
If Europe wants to access anything on the American branch, that's fine, but then they're on American territory and must operate under American rules. Similarly, if an American visits European internet (and is allowed to do so), that American must follow European rules.
What's the big deal with that? People have been doing this for centuries. When you're in Europe, follow European laws. When you're in America, follow American laws. Etc.
How do you administer these neutral giant hubs that you imagine will operate free of influence?
Why would they need "administration"?
If what you meant was upkeep or maintenance, an international consortium should do the trick. They would also have to allow inspection (but not interference) by any participating country at any time.
But other than that, why does it need "administration"? It's not rocket science. It's just a hub. They're dirt simple in principle.
And if other countries want to build hubs other than the "public" hubs, that's their business too.
If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.
I agree. Lots of people need to get it through their heads that even when it is not government, but "social pressure" that restricts speech, it is still a restriction on speech. It is not JUST something in the Constitution, it is a long-held (and hard-won) CULTURAL VALUE. The reason it appears in the Constitution is that the Founders knew what it was like to not have it. And the reason for not having it is not very important. Whether that reason is government or social pressure, not having it is still not having it.
I like how you continuously make shit up out of whole cloth to try and get people to support your bias and think you personal narrative has any meaning what so ever.
Sorry to disabuse you, but your anecdotes do not constitute proof, and your insults hardly work in your favor. What gives you the idea that sociopathic behavior makes for convincing arguments? I'm just curious.
I acknowledge that your anecdotes may be true. But you don't even know mine, so you are hardly in a place to be calling bullshit.
I have had experience with the EPA going back to the early 90s, and actually a bit beyond. Both the employees as individuals, and the organization and their regulatory and superfund processes. Not just once but many times.
So I call your anecdotes. If you want to see who has the better hand, show some real cards.
The problem is that some nations want to enforce their rules on other nations.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Create a couple of giant hubs in the Atlantic and Pacific, controlled by NOBODY. Let countries that want to hook up to them hook up to them, and then regulate their own internet however they like. But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.
The whole point of these trade agreements is to gain broad economic advantages instead of narrow special interests, protectionism, and subsidies. Opening up the negotiating process would allow all those vested interests and rent seekers to apply pressure to preserve their privileges, and end up sabotaging the process.
You are hopelessly naive.
In practice, these "trade agreements" (like SOPA, for a good example) have been notoriously wide open to special interests, but closed to the public. In fact, public interest groups (like EFF and others) ended up finding out about any of them because of leaks by industry, not the government.
Whatever "the point" is, it most definitely has not been done that way.
You and I have a vastly different idea of the democratic process.. I mean if we dont know whats in it, and cannot vote on it, then there is no democratic process involved.
The fact is that in the U.S., the process is supposed to be kind of democratic, but in practice since Bush and Obama have been in office, it has taken a pretty big hit.
There are three things at issue here. The first is that while it has not been definitively decided by courts, it is generally asknowledged that treaties do not trump the Constitution in regard to internal matters. The second is that treaties have to be ratified by the Senate before they are legal. (Of course, when the Constitution was written, the Senate more directly represented the States.) The third thing to consider is that in recent years these trade agreement talks have been taking place in secrecy in order to give The People no way to let their Senators know what they think about it.
So yeah, it is kind of a democratic process. But our Federal government has done its best to minimize the democracy part.
PLUS, one of the reasons Musk made so much money was because: how did it really come to this? It came to this because NASA and Presidents and Congress all made BAD decisions.
It doesn't sound like growing plants without nitrates or potassium is shocking scientifically.
Lots of people here are missing the point. While nitrogen and nitrates may be controversial, lack of potassium in their lettuce is a big deal in the Fukushima region because potassium 40 is radioactive. You don't want your lettuce to absorb an extra neutron here and there and become even more radioactive. That probably would not market well.
The study that originally connected nitrates with cancer risk and caused the scare in the first place has since been discredited after being subjected to a peer review. There have been major reviews of the scientific literature that found no link between nitrates or nitrites and human cancers, or even evidence to suggest that they may be carcinogenic.
That's because those studies were of nitrates, not the high-temperature products of cooking nitrate-laden organics like beef: as nitrosamines.
As I posted in another link above: nitrates themselves are known to be pretty benign. But there is plenty of good evidence over a period of decades that cooking nitrate-cured food (like hot dogs) produces nitrosamines that are well-known (and long studied) carcinogens.
Nitrates themselves are probably not much concern. In fact nitrates are known, often-prescribed vasodilators. (Know anybody who takes nitroglycerine for heart problems?)
As with so many other things, nitrates are not necessarily evil. It is what you do with them that counts.
Not quite so fast. Nitrates on their own are pretty benign. It is when they are subjected to heat that they form nitrosamines, which are potent carcinogens.
Cold foods that contain nitrates (within reason of course), as long as they were also cold-processed (cold smoked or cold cured), are generally of very small concern. It is that crispy bacon and burnt barbecue hot dogs you should be concerned about.
That is why bacon cooked in the microwave -- and especially not overcooked to crispiness -- is a lot healthier.
The housing bubble had nothing to do with this? Last I checked, Clinton had a hand in this mandating loans to poor people whom then the banks were all too willing to engage in predatory lending.
Although we can place a lot of the blame directly on Barney Frank, and his lead in pushing to "liberalize" Freddie and Fannie policies.
But what amuses me is that GP relies on CBO for a reference, which is part of the same body (the Federal government, including the President and Congress and the bureaucracies they established), to justify government's actions.
Let's face it: it's dumb to expect government to fix problems that government (largely) caused, especially when it is in the best interest of various government factions to not solve the problem.
No, but it seems you are. You keep denying but (as I showed in that other thread you insisted on continuing), you did post the link I referred to, and I have proved it twice. So you can claim ignorance of your own comment all you like, but that makes it your problem, not mine.
Now go away. As far as I am concerned (as I clearly indicated in a previous comment) what you are doing is harassment. I shall not answer you again, regardless of whether you have (as you seem to) some kind of pathological need to have the last word even if it means blatantly lying.
it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
According to the news stories, he took issue with many of the reviewer's comments, not just that one.
He has yet to show - or even claim that the reviewer was wrong. In fact he has been backpedaling ever since the publisher released the full review.
I have already explained this. If you fail to understand the simple logic that IF the reviewer rejected the paper out of bias (as Bengtsson claimed), THEN the reviewer did not reject the paper for scientific reasons, that's your problem. I have no reasonable way to help you through that.
P.S. please be a little more introspective when you read that Chris Mooney story that you linked to above. In another thread you have spent over a dozen posts trying to claim I posted something that I did not. Anyone reading the post can clearly see that I did not post that link, but for some reason you cannot back down.
I have no reason to back down, since you did in fact link to the page I referenced. Not only did I give you a link to the comment of your that contained the reference, here is a screenshot of your comment.
You are simply denying reality. And I clearly explained that the OTHER link I posted was an editing error. So you don't have that excuse.
How long until Jane's keen scientific skillz clue him into the fact that 517714 wasn't responding to his comment at all?
About 5 seconds after I hit "submit".
But since you indirectly brought the subject up: How long until a certain someone stops sock-puppeting under Anonymous Coward? It's called that for a reason, you know.
It's called El Nino. It is a weather pattern that repeats irregularly due to an upwelling of warm water in the Pacific, what you describe is not anomalous at all.
You have misunderstood my comment.
In comparison to the rest of the U.S., temperatures in the West are anamolous. Though of course if you want to be technical, you are correct that it isn't the El Nino that is anomalous, but the rest of the U.S. right now.
My point, however, was of course not which local area is seeing more of an anomaly, but the difference between actual climate trends and scare-mongering.
If it gets turned over to EPA, look for three years and at least one election season before the budget to hire the contractors to do the studies for EPA can even be drafted, let alone completed, and if we take Carpenter's "solution" at face value - the creation of Yet Another Government Agency to do what the first two haven't been able to do for decades - we're talking about doubling that time (and political risk because the momentum for the agency is going to be a function of how many elections there are between now and the agency's creation) again.
Don't be ridiculous. In many ways the EPA is as bad as the DoE, or even worse.
If they were put in charge, they'd probably turn the entire Hanford region, including Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and a long stretch of the Columbia River into a giant Superfund site, and then try to regulate everything in it from curfews to toothpaste.
EPA is not your friend. It hasn't been for decades. It is a giant bureaucracy that seeks little more than to increase its own size and budget, and believe me because I've seen it: they don't give a damn if they have to ruin your environment to do it.
Just to clarify my comment: I wasn't referring to winter. I was referring to the characterization of California fires as caused by "global warming", when the warm temperatures there are localized and far from true in the rest of the U.S.
It illustrates exactly how alarmists have grasped at anything out of the ordinary and tried to attribute it to "climate change". But when looking at climate, one has to look at the larger picture. Neither short-term phenomena or localized events are "climate". And in fact extreme weather events have been on a downward trend since the earlier part of the 20th Century, despite the predictions of the "alarmists".
Another record that was set recently was the time it has been in the U.S. since a major hurricane. It has been longer than at any time since records have been kept. (And FYI, before you jump to correct: Sandy was not classified as a major hurricane. It just hit more populated area than usual.)
That's the mean of temperatures at all Historical Climatology Stations in the U.S., for Jan. 1 - May 17 2014. So even when the warmth in CA and AZ is included, on average the U.S. has still been experiencing record cold this year.
Slashdot Mirror
And I repeat that he, and you, are both very much mistaken. There were 2 exchanges going on between he and I, in different threads (which he started, not me).
I clearly explained that the link to ioppublishing.org was an editing mistake, and it was only the other link I was referring to. The other link -- the one that was not an acknowledged editing mistake -- was in fact the same page he linked to, and the source of the quote I posted.
If that was lost in the confusion to other readers between the 2 threads, that was his fault, not mine. This whole exchange has been a rather blatant attempt to troll me.
You can see that for yourself if you go back up to his original comment, then read further down and follow both threads.
Individual speech is the thing protected by the Constitution. Organized pressure to fire somebody from their job is not free speech, it's mob rule.
There is a difference. The line might be a bit gray, but it's there.
So let's say you were an atheist. (I'm not saying you are, it's just hypothetical.) And because of your atheism, you believe that John Smith should not be able to post monuments to Jesus on government property. (Again just hypothetical.)
Lots of people would consider that to be freedom of religion. You might disagree. So in those circumstances, would you say it was socially acceptable to post a massive internet campaign to insult and disparage John Smith, boycott the company he just happens to work for, and demand that he be fired?
I am just curious what your answer to that would be.
There were a few "Megacorps", even then. Like the East India company. And just like today, the megacorps of the day got special treatment from their respective governments.
That's one of the things we fought a war to get away from.
The problem is, what you're saying here is actually "enforcing your rules on other nations". You want the rule to be "I'm free to do whatever I want", which is basically the American ruleset. You are trying to enforce that on Europe, where the rule is "no, actually, that hurts someone else, you can't do it".
This is just plain nonsense.
I'm saying: create a hub where Europe and America can connect. America is in control of its branch of the hub. Europe is in charge of its branch of the hub. Neither is controlling the other.
If Europe wants to access anything on the American branch, that's fine, but then they're on American territory and must operate under American rules. Similarly, if an American visits European internet (and is allowed to do so), that American must follow European rules.
What's the big deal with that? People have been doing this for centuries. When you're in Europe, follow European laws. When you're in America, follow American laws. Etc.
How do you administer these neutral giant hubs that you imagine will operate free of influence?
Why would they need "administration"?
If what you meant was upkeep or maintenance, an international consortium should do the trick. They would also have to allow inspection (but not interference) by any participating country at any time.
But other than that, why does it need "administration"? It's not rocket science. It's just a hub. They're dirt simple in principle.
And if other countries want to build hubs other than the "public" hubs, that's their business too.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, summarizing the philosophy of Voltaire
Also summarized as: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."
If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.
I agree. Lots of people need to get it through their heads that even when it is not government, but "social pressure" that restricts speech, it is still a restriction on speech. It is not JUST something in the Constitution, it is a long-held (and hard-won) CULTURAL VALUE. The reason it appears in the Constitution is that the Founders knew what it was like to not have it. And the reason for not having it is not very important. Whether that reason is government or social pressure, not having it is still not having it.
My last comment to you:
Nobody else seems to be exhibiting these reading problems that you appear to be exhibiting. I would think about that a bit, if I were you.
On the other hand, since your comments have been illogical and self-contradictory, maybe thinking about it would not help you at all.
s/any of them/many of them
I like how you continuously make shit up out of whole cloth to try and get people to support your bias and think you personal narrative has any meaning what so ever.
Sorry to disabuse you, but your anecdotes do not constitute proof, and your insults hardly work in your favor. What gives you the idea that sociopathic behavior makes for convincing arguments? I'm just curious.
I acknowledge that your anecdotes may be true. But you don't even know mine, so you are hardly in a place to be calling bullshit.
I have had experience with the EPA going back to the early 90s, and actually a bit beyond. Both the employees as individuals, and the organization and their regulatory and superfund processes. Not just once but many times.
So I call your anecdotes. If you want to see who has the better hand, show some real cards.
The problem is that some nations want to enforce their rules on other nations.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Create a couple of giant hubs in the Atlantic and Pacific, controlled by NOBODY. Let countries that want to hook up to them hook up to them, and then regulate their own internet however they like. But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.
The whole point of these trade agreements is to gain broad economic advantages instead of narrow special interests, protectionism, and subsidies. Opening up the negotiating process would allow all those vested interests and rent seekers to apply pressure to preserve their privileges, and end up sabotaging the process.
You are hopelessly naive.
In practice, these "trade agreements" (like SOPA, for a good example) have been notoriously wide open to special interests, but closed to the public. In fact, public interest groups (like EFF and others) ended up finding out about any of them because of leaks by industry, not the government.
Whatever "the point" is, it most definitely has not been done that way.
You and I have a vastly different idea of the democratic process.. I mean if we dont know whats in it, and cannot vote on it, then there is no democratic process involved.
The fact is that in the U.S., the process is supposed to be kind of democratic, but in practice since Bush and Obama have been in office, it has taken a pretty big hit.
There are three things at issue here. The first is that while it has not been definitively decided by courts, it is generally asknowledged that treaties do not trump the Constitution in regard to internal matters. The second is that treaties have to be ratified by the Senate before they are legal. (Of course, when the Constitution was written, the Senate more directly represented the States.) The third thing to consider is that in recent years these trade agreement talks have been taking place in secrecy in order to give The People no way to let their Senators know what they think about it.
So yeah, it is kind of a democratic process. But our Federal government has done its best to minimize the democracy part.
This.
PLUS, one of the reasons Musk made so much money was because: how did it really come to this? It came to this because NASA and Presidents and Congress all made BAD decisions.
Against better advice, I might add.
It doesn't sound like growing plants without nitrates or potassium is shocking scientifically.
Lots of people here are missing the point. While nitrogen and nitrates may be controversial, lack of potassium in their lettuce is a big deal in the Fukushima region because potassium 40 is radioactive. You don't want your lettuce to absorb an extra neutron here and there and become even more radioactive. That probably would not market well.
The study that originally connected nitrates with cancer risk and caused the scare in the first place has since been discredited after being subjected to a peer review. There have been major reviews of the scientific literature that found no link between nitrates or nitrites and human cancers, or even evidence to suggest that they may be carcinogenic.
That's because those studies were of nitrates, not the high-temperature products of cooking nitrate-laden organics like beef: as nitrosamines.
As I posted in another link above: nitrates themselves are known to be pretty benign. But there is plenty of good evidence over a period of decades that cooking nitrate-cured food (like hot dogs) produces nitrosamines that are well-known (and long studied) carcinogens.
Nitrates themselves are probably not much concern. In fact nitrates are known, often-prescribed vasodilators. (Know anybody who takes nitroglycerine for heart problems?)
As with so many other things, nitrates are not necessarily evil. It is what you do with them that counts.
Potassium yes, nitrates no.
Not quite so fast. Nitrates on their own are pretty benign. It is when they are subjected to heat that they form nitrosamines, which are potent carcinogens.
Cold foods that contain nitrates (within reason of course), as long as they were also cold-processed (cold smoked or cold cured), are generally of very small concern. It is that crispy bacon and burnt barbecue hot dogs you should be concerned about.
That is why bacon cooked in the microwave -- and especially not overcooked to crispiness -- is a lot healthier.
The housing bubble had nothing to do with this? Last I checked, Clinton had a hand in this mandating loans to poor people whom then the banks were all too willing to engage in predatory lending.
Although we can place a lot of the blame directly on Barney Frank, and his lead in pushing to "liberalize" Freddie and Fannie policies.
But what amuses me is that GP relies on CBO for a reference, which is part of the same body (the Federal government, including the President and Congress and the bureaucracies they established), to justify government's actions.
Let's face it: it's dumb to expect government to fix problems that government (largely) caused, especially when it is in the best interest of various government factions to not solve the problem.
No, but it seems you are. You keep denying but (as I showed in that other thread you insisted on continuing), you did post the link I referred to, and I have proved it twice. So you can claim ignorance of your own comment all you like, but that makes it your problem, not mine.
Now go away. As far as I am concerned (as I clearly indicated in a previous comment) what you are doing is harassment. I shall not answer you again, regardless of whether you have (as you seem to) some kind of pathological need to have the last word even if it means blatantly lying.
He took issue with this statement:
it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
According to the news stories, he took issue with many of the reviewer's comments, not just that one.
He has yet to show - or even claim that the reviewer was wrong. In fact he has been backpedaling ever since the publisher released the full review.
I have already explained this. If you fail to understand the simple logic that IF the reviewer rejected the paper out of bias (as Bengtsson claimed), THEN the reviewer did not reject the paper for scientific reasons, that's your problem. I have no reasonable way to help you through that.
P.S. please be a little more introspective when you read that Chris Mooney story that you linked to above. In another thread you have spent over a dozen posts trying to claim I posted something that I did not. Anyone reading the post can clearly see that I did not post that link, but for some reason you cannot back down.
I have no reason to back down, since you did in fact link to the page I referenced. Not only did I give you a link to the comment of your that contained the reference, here is a screenshot of your comment.
You are simply denying reality. And I clearly explained that the OTHER link I posted was an editing error. So you don't have that excuse.
Why do you continue to troll?
How long until Jane's keen scientific skillz clue him into the fact that 517714 wasn't responding to his comment at all?
About 5 seconds after I hit "submit".
But since you indirectly brought the subject up: How long until a certain someone stops sock-puppeting under Anonymous Coward? It's called that for a reason, you know.
It's called El Nino. It is a weather pattern that repeats irregularly due to an upwelling of warm water in the Pacific, what you describe is not anomalous at all.
You have misunderstood my comment.
In comparison to the rest of the U.S., temperatures in the West are anamolous. Though of course if you want to be technical, you are correct that it isn't the El Nino that is anomalous, but the rest of the U.S. right now.
My point, however, was of course not which local area is seeing more of an anomaly, but the difference between actual climate trends and scare-mongering.
If it gets turned over to EPA, look for three years and at least one election season before the budget to hire the contractors to do the studies for EPA can even be drafted, let alone completed, and if we take Carpenter's "solution" at face value - the creation of Yet Another Government Agency to do what the first two haven't been able to do for decades - we're talking about doubling that time (and political risk because the momentum for the agency is going to be a function of how many elections there are between now and the agency's creation) again.
Don't be ridiculous. In many ways the EPA is as bad as the DoE, or even worse.
If they were put in charge, they'd probably turn the entire Hanford region, including Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and a long stretch of the Columbia River into a giant Superfund site, and then try to regulate everything in it from curfews to toothpaste.
EPA is not your friend. It hasn't been for decades. It is a giant bureaucracy that seeks little more than to increase its own size and budget, and believe me because I've seen it: they don't give a damn if they have to ruin your environment to do it.
Just to clarify my comment: I wasn't referring to winter. I was referring to the characterization of California fires as caused by "global warming", when the warm temperatures there are localized and far from true in the rest of the U.S.
It illustrates exactly how alarmists have grasped at anything out of the ordinary and tried to attribute it to "climate change". But when looking at climate, one has to look at the larger picture. Neither short-term phenomena or localized events are "climate". And in fact extreme weather events have been on a downward trend since the earlier part of the 20th Century, despite the predictions of the "alarmists".
Another record that was set recently was the time it has been in the U.S. since a major hurricane. It has been longer than at any time since records have been kept. (And FYI, before you jump to correct: Sandy was not classified as a major hurricane. It just hit more populated area than usual.)
Any time someone says "look how bad winter was" they are (rightfully) chided for treating a variation in weather as being "climate".
Especially when it is very localized.
That's the mean of temperatures at all Historical Climatology Stations in the U.S., for Jan. 1 - May 17 2014. So even when the warmth in CA and AZ is included, on average the U.S. has still been experiencing record cold this year.
Weather vs. climate, indeed.