It can't be a straightforward application of the First Amendment, because corporations are not people and do not have "rights".
I am aware the the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are legally people, but that flies in the face of around 200 years of law that up until then said otherwise. That decision merely shows how messed up today's Supreme Court is.
If you -- or the courts -- actually think corporations have all the legal rights of people, then why aren't they allowed to vote? Or marry?
From a historical perspective, corporations were awarded the legal standing of "people" only insofar as that was necessary to engage in trade. The notion that they enjoy "rights" like actual people do is a relatively new and rather bizarre idea. In fact, the Supreme Court contradicted many of its own past rulings, because "corporate speech" is already -- and still -- regulated by law in a variety of ways that do not apply to real people.
The individuals who run a corporation have all the rights of people, of course, and can speak in any manner they choose. But that is not the same thing.
"The resolution of the General Assembly [the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.
"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve." -- James Madison, Report of 1800
"Spelling issues aside, it's what you pay your rent with when your landlord won't accept payments in cash (presumably because if they did, lots of tenants might prefer to just pay in cash, and they would be setting themselves up to be a target for a possible robbery on the day that rent happens to be due)."
Technically, the Constitution says that nothing but gold and silver can be required as "money". Nevertheless, the Federal government, in its infinite wisdom (sarcasm) has instituted this system of paper money that we now have.
In the process, they passed a law that says U.S. paper money is "legal tender for all debts, public and private". [emphasis mine] That means it's against Federal law to refuse cash for payment of a debt.
I know why they do it, but that doesn't make it any more legal.
"As an online backup company, the security and privacy of our customer data is our top priority. We take all matters related to privacy very seriously."
They take privacy "very seriously"? How? By giving your information to all their advertisers along with a nice note saying "Please do not steal"???
Anybody who did this in the first place, despite "agreements" with those third parties, would be off my list immediately. Speaking of which: I guess Carbonite is off my list.
I mean really. Give me a break. "Security through third-party agreement" makes "security through obscurity" look like a good bet.
When you can sit down at your computer and quite literally write a better mousetrap, with no further interaction, I'll buy this argument. Until then, no.
I set up Google maps on a site a couple of months ago, and I can tell you that this restriction is already in place. Even then their TOS said that if you had over 2,500 hits in a day, you needed a Premier account. My client contacted Google and they were told that a Premier account would cost them $10,000.
So, rather than charging more, this newer scheme looks like it actually be cheaper than before, for most of those who have to pay.
"Inhofe" was not "the last word". However, are YOU saying that just because these numbers were listed by him, that they are wrong? An ad hominem argument?
I will thank you to look at the references contained on that page and show that THEY are wrong.
It is the message, and not the messenger, that is important here. Refute the message if you can. I don't give the slightest damn about your ad hominem arguments.
"But rather strangely you get irate because I point out what your politics are."
I am not, and was not, "irate". However, you obviously think you know a lot more about me than you really do.
"Your political beliefs are relevant, because invariably the deniers, such as yourself, come from the right. Conservatives/Republicans/Tea partiers/Libertarians."
Hahahaha. That's funny. And wrong.
I won't say much about the "Tea Party", since it doesn't exist anymore, having been usurped by Republicans. But the original Tea Party had many people from the political Left as well as on the Right. Maybe not as many, but still a pretty good number.
But your lumping Libertarians in with those others demonstrates your ignorance of politics.
I see. I'm one of those people, eh? That type. Interesting that you would lump them all together and call them by derogatory names.
And while your list does mention Democrats in passing, it is Republicans that it mentions in an undeniably derogatory fashion.
"I'd note down your name to come and revisit this topic in a few years time. But I know that once you get to the stage where you feel ridiculous denying any more, you won't be here any more."
Wow. A mind-reader and clairvoyant. However do you do it?
I have been on Slashdot for years, thick and thin. I don't plan on going anywhere.
"Just to be really clear, are you denying the fact that temperatures have risen... "
Nowhere did I state that warming was not occurring. What gave you that idea? Certainly nothing that I wrote.
"... or are you unaware that higher temperature averages result in more extreme weather conditions?"
No. On the contrary. I am aware that there is no scientific evidence for greater weather extremes due to warmer temperatures. After all, we have data showing past temperatures that were warmer than the present. But the evidence does not indicate greater extremes during those times. Nor, for that matter, as it has warmed up during the last half-century or so, have extreme events like tsunamis occurred more frequently.
(Look it up. You might find more deaths due to tsunamis, but the frequency of tsunamis has been going down since about 1950.)
"Personally I won't be spending my time with you hunting out links on the internet."
Just as I thought. Unwilling to put your money where your mouth is. You can call me a "denier" all you want, but it is you who are denying simple facts.
If you made a chart of spending on this research (both government AND private), and made each million dollars 1/8 of an inch tall, the "skeptical of AGW" side of the chart would have a bar 2 3/8 inches tall.
The bar representing spending on "pro-AGW" research would be almost as tall as the Washington Monument.
It's late. To clarify what I was saying, I was responding to your comment:
"If the skeptics really believed that the findings were invalid then they would 'do some science' of their own and find out the truth."
But as I pointed out above, that data was not actually available, so they could not. Some of the data, as you point out, was available from both CRU and NASA. But by not means all of it; a very significant portion was not released to the public until just a couple of months ago.
So your entire argument here is based on a faulty assumption that does not fit the actual facts.
Further, the Mueller study does not confirm their THEORY of Anthropogenic warming, at all. All Mueller did was confirm the initial data, from which they formed their theory. That is not confirmation of the theory, at all. It merely says they didn't fake their initial data.
No, it could not. It can NOW, but now is a much different story from then. Obviously you haven't done your homework on the subject.
First off, they would not reveal all the sources of their data. Some of it was public, true, but some of it was arranged via private business arrangement with international sources, not all of which they would name. And they would not release those data, precisely because of their claim that the sources wanted confidentiality.
Now, I admit that the following is only my opinion, but I do not feel that research that is being done with public money, and researchers who are being paid with public money, should be making deals that keep their data hidden from the public. But the fact is that much of the HadCRU data was based on confidential sources, and much of it was never seen by others until the "leaked" data and emails hit the internet.
It was only a couple of months ago that they finally released the rest of that data, YEARS after it was requested by others, some of it under Freedom of Information laws with which they did not comply. And in fact, Mueller would not have been able to do the work he did unless they had.
So say what you want about "deniers", but you don't have your facts straight. The data was not in fact available. When it finally DID become available, somebody did something with it. Imagine that.
"A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in June 2007 that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide'."[185] Similar positions have been advanced by climatologist Marcel Leroux,[186] NASA's Roy Spencer, climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott,[187] Accuracy in Media,[188] and Ian Plimer in his 2009 book Heaven and Earth â" Global Warming: The Missing Science."
There are counterclaims, as is to be expected. But this is hardly the only source. One of my favorite sources has been temporarily taken off the air, because too much traffic has overwhelmed the servers.:o(
You know what? I was going to give you a whole list of references, but instead I will leave you with just one more: the U.S. Senate. According to their figures, the amount that has been spent goes like this...
wait for it...
pro-AGW: $50 Billion, while the other side got skeptical of AGW: $19 Million.
Yes, that's not a mistake. $50 BILLION dollars versus $19 MILLION dollars.
And that includes industry spending.
Is that one-sided enough for you?
There are links to references and such on that page. I think my work here is done.
"What you're saying is rather than proving your conspiracy theory right, you want other people to prove it wrong."
I made no statements about any "conspiracy"!!! Stop trying to put words in my mouth! I made no comment about reasons for the spending at all; I simply stated that it exists. YOU are the one trying to shoehorn what you think you know about my "beliefs" into the conversation... tell me: have you made any money yet with that mind-reading act?
"Not so much. Your anti-science belief set follows your political belief. You want small government; libertarianism - I don't know how you'd identify your specific stance but it's somewhere in that area."
If you don't know how I'd identify my specific stance, how is it that you feel justified making assumptions about it? Further, you are going so far afield as to take a specific comment I made about specific research dollars spent, and somehow stretch that comment to be something about my political beliefs that you admit you do not understand???
Amazing. And here I thought I was trying to hold a rational discussion with somebody about a particular, narrow subject. He not only does not address that subject, but instead makes ad-hominem arguments based on assumptions about something he admits he doesn't even know.
And the fact that AGW needs tackling means that small government, and allowing people to continue to do whatever they like to the environment, aren't the answers."
On the contrary; AGW, if it exists, is an economic question. If it has to be "tackled", it has to, in any rational plan, be industry that has to "tackle" it, since if it exists, it is industry that is causing it.
You are saying that it is a foregone conclusion that government must be the answer to a fundamentally economic question, but I am not aware of any actual evidence for that conclusion. In fact, I submit that there is ample evidence (especially since 2008!) that government has proven itself incompetent to handle important economic questions.
I should mention as an aside though, however much it is unrelated to the point I just made, that Jones, Mann, et al. did conspire to stonewall release of said data (to the point of actually violating Freedom of Information laws, in fact), and that it was the "climategate" release that made much of their stonewalling moot.
If AGW eventually turns out to have any validity, Jones, Mann and friends should not get any credit for their theory because their refusal to release the data made it (at the time) impossible to verify any of their findings. Which is unscientific.
The claims that scientists are under no obligation to release their raw data is disingenuous: that may be true for experimental research but this was not experimental research. It was merely a study of historical data. As such, EVERYTHING in their work depended on the initial data and every step of every "adjustment" they made to it. Experimental research can be duplicated by others. Studies of historical data cannot, without access to that data.
At the time it happened, the Hadley-CRU-Pa findings were NOT verifiable because nobody else had the data and they weren't letting anybody have it.
Regardless of whatever else has transpired or may transpire, Jones, Mann, Bradley, Hughes, et al. behaved more like a bunch of irresponsible children than researchers we should trust.
"Err, you were claiming that Jones was stonewalling efforts to replicate the CRU temperature series."
Err, no I wasn't. Where the hell did that come from? You must have confused me with somebody else. In fact I wasn't part of this sub-thread at all until I made the above point about Mueller.
"Not sure what you are referring to above regarding proof of AGW."
Many people have been referring to the Mueller paper as though it confirms AGW, when in fact it does nothing of the sort.
The CRU temperature data is the starting point. It is nothing more than historical data. AGW is a THEORY about the reasons why the data shows what it shows. Support for the validity of the initial data can in no way be construed as verification of any theory about that data that extrapolates into the future.
Even though a lot of people have been saying that, the very concept is silly. That would be like seeing a confirmation that the days in summer are indeed longer than those in winter, and calling that support for the idea that it's because the days in summer get hot, so they expand.
Please provide me with links to at least two examples of actual research on global warming that was funded by the oil industry.
Never mind. In your next paragraph you acknowledge my point, and contradict your own "FTFY".
I did not ask about propaganda; my point was about research. Both "sides" of the issue are guilty of large amounts of propaganda containing large amounts of bullshit. I won't deny that. But it wasn't what the conversation was about.
I am constantly amazed by the amount of modding done here on Slashdot as "troll" simply because people disagree, or some statement challenges their preconceptions.
It really comes across sometimes as a venue for children.
How about this idea: have modding down for "troll" or "flamebait" require the listing of a reason for doing it, that other people with mod points can read it.
I bet that would reduce mods for "troll" and "flamebait" by about half or more.
It would be "protectionism", if this were a level playing field and real free markets were involved. But real free markets make use of exchange rates to compensate for their internal differences in economies. Without exchange rates, it isn't really free trade, and it isn't really free market competition.
But the way outsourcing of labor is done today improperly bypasses these exchange rates. Therefore the differences in the economies are not compensated, and it is not genuine competition, or free-market anything. In an indirect way, it means the labor is being subsidized by that foreign economy.
We already know that subsidies are not free trade. Q.E.D.
This would be justification enough for a tariff. What I suggested though was not a tariff, but rather a direct tax on outsourcers. They are not the same things.
No, it is a subtle distinction but nevertheless real, and you missed it.
I did NOT call for the taxation of any goods (in fact I explicitly explained that I was not referring to a tariff). I called for a direct tax to businesses, to compensate the economy for capital that is being dumped overseas. That is not the same thing at all.
Using labor in countries that have a very different economy than our own is neither "free trade" or "competition". In fact it is a cheating way to get around real market values. Let me give you an example. (These numbers are purely hypothetical for illustration purposes.)
Let's say you want to hire a web designer. The going rate in the US is $20 an hour. Or you can hire one in Hooblistan for $5 an hour. This seems like a no-brainer. But here's the thing: in Hooblistan, that web designer can buy 40 pounds of rice for his $5. In the US, that $20 buys less than 10 pounds. (And we must presume that other prices and commodities follow a similar pattern.) So you are paying the Hooblistani an amount that, for an American to make the same purchases, would come to $80 an hour. For what (we will again presume) amounts to the same work.
In short, what this arrangement does is bypass the exchange rate between currencies. In the past, before near-universal, near-instant communication, it was not possible to outsource in quite this manner. Other expenses were involved that often compensated for the differences.
But what it boils down to is that this is NOT free-market competition. Labor from many developing nations has inherent advantages, due to their economies. Domestic (i.e., U.S.) labor has no sane way to compete; it is simply not a level playing field. Americans would have a hard time paying for groceries with that amount of money.
That is not an indictment of the American laborer, it's simply an economic reality. Workers in many developing nations have a very real UNFAIR advantage over domestic labor, due to our dissimilar economies. Therefore, since it is not a situation involving genuine free-market competition, government would be fully justified in taxing businesses to compensate our economy for the resulting capital drain. As a beneficial side-effect, it gives companies a reason to re-consider domestic labor.
That is not "protectionism" at all; it is simply a scheme to compensate for an unfair advantage on the part of the other party involved. If the situation were reversed, I would fully expect them to do the same thing. Far from protectionism, it is the only sane thing to do if you don't want to bleed your own country to death.
WHO is thinking "conspiracy"??? It certainly was not me. Why did you assume that it was?
I did not state one word about intent, or conspiracy, or anything at all of that nature. As I stated to that other person earlier: I will thank you to not try to put words in my mouth.
I did not speculate at all about the reasons why money has been spent as it has. I simply made a statement about the state of affairs. Not one word about causes, if indeed there are any.
I think assuming that I meant conspiracy says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Slashdot Mirror
I am aware the the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are legally people, but that flies in the face of around 200 years of law that up until then said otherwise. That decision merely shows how messed up today's Supreme Court is.
If you -- or the courts -- actually think corporations have all the legal rights of people, then why aren't they allowed to vote? Or marry?
From a historical perspective, corporations were awarded the legal standing of "people" only insofar as that was necessary to engage in trade. The notion that they enjoy "rights" like actual people do is a relatively new and rather bizarre idea. In fact, the Supreme Court contradicted many of its own past rulings, because "corporate speech" is already -- and still -- regulated by law in a variety of ways that do not apply to real people.
The individuals who run a corporation have all the rights of people, of course, and can speak in any manner they choose. But that is not the same thing.
"The resolution of the General Assembly [the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.
"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve." -- James Madison, Report of 1800
"Spelling issues aside, it's what you pay your rent with when your landlord won't accept payments in cash (presumably because if they did, lots of tenants might prefer to just pay in cash, and they would be setting themselves up to be a target for a possible robbery on the day that rent happens to be due)."
Technically, the Constitution says that nothing but gold and silver can be required as "money". Nevertheless, the Federal government, in its infinite wisdom (sarcasm) has instituted this system of paper money that we now have.
In the process, they passed a law that says U.S. paper money is "legal tender for all debts, public and private". [emphasis mine] That means it's against Federal law to refuse cash for payment of a debt.
I know why they do it, but that doesn't make it any more legal.
"As an online backup company, the security and privacy of our customer data is our top priority. We take all matters related to privacy very seriously."
They take privacy "very seriously"? How? By giving your information to all their advertisers along with a nice note saying "Please do not steal"???
Anybody who did this in the first place, despite "agreements" with those third parties, would be off my list immediately. Speaking of which: I guess Carbonite is off my list.
I mean really. Give me a break. "Security through third-party agreement" makes "security through obscurity" look like a good bet.
When you can sit down at your computer and quite literally write a better mousetrap, with no further interaction, I'll buy this argument. Until then, no.
I set up Google maps on a site a couple of months ago, and I can tell you that this restriction is already in place. Even then their TOS said that if you had over 2,500 hits in a day, you needed a Premier account. My client contacted Google and they were told that a Premier account would cost them $10,000.
So, rather than charging more, this newer scheme looks like it actually be cheaper than before, for most of those who have to pay.
"Inhofe" was not "the last word". However, are YOU saying that just because these numbers were listed by him, that they are wrong? An ad hominem argument?
I will thank you to look at the references contained on that page and show that THEY are wrong.
It is the message, and not the messenger, that is important here. Refute the message if you can. I don't give the slightest damn about your ad hominem arguments.
"But rather strangely you get irate because I point out what your politics are."
I am not, and was not, "irate". However, you obviously think you know a lot more about me than you really do.
"Your political beliefs are relevant, because invariably the deniers, such as yourself, come from the right. Conservatives/Republicans/Tea partiers/Libertarians."
Hahahaha. That's funny. And wrong.
I won't say much about the "Tea Party", since it doesn't exist anymore, having been usurped by Republicans. But the original Tea Party had many people from the political Left as well as on the Right. Maybe not as many, but still a pretty good number.
But your lumping Libertarians in with those others demonstrates your ignorance of politics.
"And this is your response to the other person being right, and you knowing they have got you."
It wasn't worth a long, well-argued response. It's a ridiculous comparison.
Pardon me, I did in fact confuse you with someone else.
I see. I'm one of those people, eh? That type. Interesting that you would lump them all together and call them by derogatory names.
And while your list does mention Democrats in passing, it is Republicans that it mentions in an undeniably derogatory fashion.
"I'd note down your name to come and revisit this topic in a few years time. But I know that once you get to the stage where you feel ridiculous denying any more, you won't be here any more."
Wow. A mind-reader and clairvoyant. However do you do it?
I have been on Slashdot for years, thick and thin. I don't plan on going anywhere.
"Just to be really clear, are you denying the fact that temperatures have risen... "
Nowhere did I state that warming was not occurring. What gave you that idea? Certainly nothing that I wrote.
"... or are you unaware that higher temperature averages result in more extreme weather conditions?"
No. On the contrary. I am aware that there is no scientific evidence for greater weather extremes due to warmer temperatures. After all, we have data showing past temperatures that were warmer than the present. But the evidence does not indicate greater extremes during those times. Nor, for that matter, as it has warmed up during the last half-century or so, have extreme events like tsunamis occurred more frequently.
(Look it up. You might find more deaths due to tsunamis, but the frequency of tsunamis has been going down since about 1950.)
"Personally I won't be spending my time with you hunting out links on the internet."
Just as I thought. Unwilling to put your money where your mouth is. You can call me a "denier" all you want, but it is you who are denying simple facts.
Just to put this in perspective:
If you made a chart of spending on this research (both government AND private), and made each million dollars 1/8 of an inch tall, the "skeptical of AGW" side of the chart would have a bar 2 3/8 inches tall.
The bar representing spending on "pro-AGW" research would be almost as tall as the Washington Monument.
Isn't this FUN?
"If the skeptics really believed that the findings were invalid then they would 'do some science' of their own and find out the truth."
But as I pointed out above, that data was not actually available, so they could not. Some of the data, as you point out, was available from both CRU and NASA. But by not means all of it; a very significant portion was not released to the public until just a couple of months ago.
So your entire argument here is based on a faulty assumption that does not fit the actual facts.
Further, the Mueller study does not confirm their THEORY of Anthropogenic warming, at all. All Mueller did was confirm the initial data, from which they formed their theory. That is not confirmation of the theory, at all. It merely says they didn't fake their initial data.
No, it could not. It can NOW, but now is a much different story from then. Obviously you haven't done your homework on the subject.
First off, they would not reveal all the sources of their data. Some of it was public, true, but some of it was arranged via private business arrangement with international sources, not all of which they would name. And they would not release those data, precisely because of their claim that the sources wanted confidentiality.
Now, I admit that the following is only my opinion, but I do not feel that research that is being done with public money, and researchers who are being paid with public money, should be making deals that keep their data hidden from the public. But the fact is that much of the HadCRU data was based on confidential sources, and much of it was never seen by others until the "leaked" data and emails hit the internet.
It was only a couple of months ago that they finally released the rest of that data, YEARS after it was requested by others, some of it under Freedom of Information laws with which they did not comply. And in fact, Mueller would not have been able to do the work he did unless they had.
So say what you want about "deniers", but you don't have your facts straight. The data was not in fact available. When it finally DID become available, somebody did something with it. Imagine that.
R-I-G-H-T. So, we'll just outlaw coal.
Good plan. Keep it up. We'll solve this problem yet.
Hahaha. Please show me where I "denied" something where I could not back it up.
And I would be the LAST person to tell you that the AGW debate is not political.
Quoth Wikipedia:
"A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in June 2007 that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide'."[185] Similar positions have been advanced by climatologist Marcel Leroux,[186] NASA's Roy Spencer, climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott,[187] Accuracy in Media,[188] and Ian Plimer in his 2009 book Heaven and Earth â" Global Warming: The Missing Science."
There are counterclaims, as is to be expected. But this is hardly the only source. One of my favorite sources has been temporarily taken off the air, because too much traffic has overwhelmed the servers. :o(
You know what? I was going to give you a whole list of references, but instead I will leave you with just one more: the U.S. Senate. According to their figures, the amount that has been spent goes like this...
wait for it...
pro-AGW: $50 Billion, while the other side got skeptical of AGW: $19 Million.
Yes, that's not a mistake. $50 BILLION dollars versus $19 MILLION dollars.
And that includes industry spending.
Is that one-sided enough for you?
There are links to references and such on that page. I think my work here is done.
"What you're saying is rather than proving your conspiracy theory right, you want other people to prove it wrong."
I made no statements about any "conspiracy"!!! Stop trying to put words in my mouth! I made no comment about reasons for the spending at all; I simply stated that it exists. YOU are the one trying to shoehorn what you think you know about my "beliefs" into the conversation... tell me: have you made any money yet with that mind-reading act?
"Not so much. Your anti-science belief set follows your political belief. You want small government; libertarianism - I don't know how you'd identify your specific stance but it's somewhere in that area."
If you don't know how I'd identify my specific stance, how is it that you feel justified making assumptions about it? Further, you are going so far afield as to take a specific comment I made about specific research dollars spent, and somehow stretch that comment to be something about my political beliefs that you admit you do not understand???
Amazing. And here I thought I was trying to hold a rational discussion with somebody about a particular, narrow subject. He not only does not address that subject, but instead makes ad-hominem arguments based on assumptions about something he admits he doesn't even know.
And the fact that AGW needs tackling means that small government, and allowing people to continue to do whatever they like to the environment, aren't the answers."
On the contrary; AGW, if it exists, is an economic question. If it has to be "tackled", it has to, in any rational plan, be industry that has to "tackle" it, since if it exists, it is industry that is causing it.
You are saying that it is a foregone conclusion that government must be the answer to a fundamentally economic question, but I am not aware of any actual evidence for that conclusion. In fact, I submit that there is ample evidence (especially since 2008!) that government has proven itself incompetent to handle important economic questions.
I should mention as an aside though, however much it is unrelated to the point I just made, that Jones, Mann, et al. did conspire to stonewall release of said data (to the point of actually violating Freedom of Information laws, in fact), and that it was the "climategate" release that made much of their stonewalling moot.
If AGW eventually turns out to have any validity, Jones, Mann and friends should not get any credit for their theory because their refusal to release the data made it (at the time) impossible to verify any of their findings. Which is unscientific.
The claims that scientists are under no obligation to release their raw data is disingenuous: that may be true for experimental research but this was not experimental research. It was merely a study of historical data. As such, EVERYTHING in their work depended on the initial data and every step of every "adjustment" they made to it. Experimental research can be duplicated by others. Studies of historical data cannot, without access to that data.
At the time it happened, the Hadley-CRU-Pa findings were NOT verifiable because nobody else had the data and they weren't letting anybody have it.
Regardless of whatever else has transpired or may transpire, Jones, Mann, Bradley, Hughes, et al. behaved more like a bunch of irresponsible children than researchers we should trust.
"Err, you were claiming that Jones was stonewalling efforts to replicate the CRU temperature series."
Err, no I wasn't. Where the hell did that come from? You must have confused me with somebody else. In fact I wasn't part of this sub-thread at all until I made the above point about Mueller.
"Not sure what you are referring to above regarding proof of AGW."
Many people have been referring to the Mueller paper as though it confirms AGW, when in fact it does nothing of the sort.
The CRU temperature data is the starting point. It is nothing more than historical data. AGW is a THEORY about the reasons why the data shows what it shows. Support for the validity of the initial data can in no way be construed as verification of any theory about that data that extrapolates into the future.
Even though a lot of people have been saying that, the very concept is silly. That would be like seeing a confirmation that the days in summer are indeed longer than those in winter, and calling that support for the idea that it's because the days in summer get hot, so they expand.
Please provide me with links to at least two examples of actual research on global warming that was funded by the oil industry.
Never mind. In your next paragraph you acknowledge my point, and contradict your own "FTFY".
I did not ask about propaganda; my point was about research. Both "sides" of the issue are guilty of large amounts of propaganda containing large amounts of bullshit. I won't deny that. But it wasn't what the conversation was about.
I am constantly amazed by the amount of modding done here on Slashdot as "troll" simply because people disagree, or some statement challenges their preconceptions.
It really comes across sometimes as a venue for children.
How about this idea: have modding down for "troll" or "flamebait" require the listing of a reason for doing it, that other people with mod points can read it.
I bet that would reduce mods for "troll" and "flamebait" by about half or more.
To clarify what I meant:
It would be "protectionism", if this were a level playing field and real free markets were involved. But real free markets make use of exchange rates to compensate for their internal differences in economies. Without exchange rates, it isn't really free trade, and it isn't really free market competition.
But the way outsourcing of labor is done today improperly bypasses these exchange rates. Therefore the differences in the economies are not compensated, and it is not genuine competition, or free-market anything. In an indirect way, it means the labor is being subsidized by that foreign economy.
We already know that subsidies are not free trade. Q.E.D.
This would be justification enough for a tariff. What I suggested though was not a tariff, but rather a direct tax on outsourcers. They are not the same things.
No, it is a subtle distinction but nevertheless real, and you missed it.
I did NOT call for the taxation of any goods (in fact I explicitly explained that I was not referring to a tariff). I called for a direct tax to businesses, to compensate the economy for capital that is being dumped overseas. That is not the same thing at all.
Using labor in countries that have a very different economy than our own is neither "free trade" or "competition". In fact it is a cheating way to get around real market values. Let me give you an example. (These numbers are purely hypothetical for illustration purposes.)
Let's say you want to hire a web designer. The going rate in the US is $20 an hour. Or you can hire one in Hooblistan for $5 an hour. This seems like a no-brainer. But here's the thing: in Hooblistan, that web designer can buy 40 pounds of rice for his $5. In the US, that $20 buys less than 10 pounds. (And we must presume that other prices and commodities follow a similar pattern.) So you are paying the Hooblistani an amount that, for an American to make the same purchases, would come to $80 an hour. For what (we will again presume) amounts to the same work.
In short, what this arrangement does is bypass the exchange rate between currencies. In the past, before near-universal, near-instant communication, it was not possible to outsource in quite this manner. Other expenses were involved that often compensated for the differences.
But what it boils down to is that this is NOT free-market competition. Labor from many developing nations has inherent advantages, due to their economies. Domestic (i.e., U.S.) labor has no sane way to compete; it is simply not a level playing field. Americans would have a hard time paying for groceries with that amount of money.
That is not an indictment of the American laborer, it's simply an economic reality. Workers in many developing nations have a very real UNFAIR advantage over domestic labor, due to our dissimilar economies. Therefore, since it is not a situation involving genuine free-market competition, government would be fully justified in taxing businesses to compensate our economy for the resulting capital drain. As a beneficial side-effect, it gives companies a reason to re-consider domestic labor.
That is not "protectionism" at all; it is simply a scheme to compensate for an unfair advantage on the part of the other party involved. If the situation were reversed, I would fully expect them to do the same thing. Far from protectionism, it is the only sane thing to do if you don't want to bleed your own country to death.
WHO is thinking "conspiracy"??? It certainly was not me. Why did you assume that it was?
I did not state one word about intent, or conspiracy, or anything at all of that nature. As I stated to that other person earlier: I will thank you to not try to put words in my mouth.
I did not speculate at all about the reasons why money has been spent as it has. I simply made a statement about the state of affairs. Not one word about causes, if indeed there are any.
I think assuming that I meant conspiracy says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.