Except that there are people who are trying to get the government to force me to change my behaviors because they believe in it. Because of those people, light bulbs are going to cost me more next year.
Now that even the previously skeptical are finally admitting climate change is happening- how do we prove that man is responsible- what would it take?
Well, first you would need to find someone who was previously skeptical who was now a believer, because Richard Muller was never skeptical of man-made global warming. He resigned from the Sierra Club over it in the 80s because they opposed nuclear power.
This guy had some actual scientific doubts about global warming,...
Then why did he write a book in 2008 advising whoever won the election that they would have to implement policies to address man-made global warming? And why did he resign from the Sierra Club back in the 80s over its opposition to nuclear energy when he believed that increased nuclear energy was the only way to avoid man-made global warming?
Oh, so that explains the behavior of all of the big proponents of AGW. They become outspoken proponents of the government forcing other people to change their behaviors so they can feel comfortable not changing their own.
That was my thought as well. Typical business rule of thumb is that an employer charges somewhat more than 2x the rate they pay the workers. That is the basic rule for companies that hire people as employees and then charge customers and hourly fee to do work (mechanics, autobody repairmen, carpenters, etc). For contract employees, the agency usually charges somewhat more. I came across a well written column on being an independent contractor in IT, they said you should charge 3x what you would want as an employee for the work. As others have pointed out, it is easier to get rid of contract workers when the job is finished than it is to get rid of employees (especially government employees).
He has never been a skeptic of man-made global warming. He has been a proponent of the theory since the 1980s. He even wrote a book in 2008 called "Physics for the Futue President" in which he called he said the next President would have to institute policies to address it.
This is what most makes me question his motives. He has been preaching man-made global warming for decades, now he has a new study and is claiming that he was a "skeptic" until he completed this new study.
A denier isn't interested in what is real, just convincing people to follow them.
Which is what Richard Muller appears to be, except that he wasn't denying man-made global warming, he has been shilling for it. He has never demonstrated any skepticism of the theory. He has been promoting it. Even though he has been talking about global warming as "settled science" for a well over a decade, he has come out with a new study that supports what he has been saying all along, but that wouldn't make news, so he claims he was "skeptical" of man-made global warming until he did this study and "now, he is convinced".
The problem is that Richard Muller was never a global warming skeptic. He was talking about the "need to address man-made global warming" back in the 1980s. In 2008, he wrote a book,"Physics for Future Presidents", advising either John McCain or Barack Obama to prepare to address man-made global warming. This whole story is a fraud. The guy is claiming that he used to be a global warming skeptic, yet, he has been preaching Anthropogenic Global Warming pretty much as long as anyone.
Lots of people are replying to this saying that no one said that we had erased the federal debt, and that is correct. However, there are lots of people who believe that we were running a surplus at some point under Clinton, and that is not true either. Clinton never had a surplus. The size of the federal debt has increased every year I have been alive, including every year that Clinton was President. If there had been a surplus under Clinton, the size of federal debt would have decreased. It did not happen.
You do know that the Wright brothers more closely resemble Rossi than any current scientists?
That being said, Rossi appears to be a scam artist, not the next Wright brothers. There are two possible explanations for a guy like Rossi. The first is that he is a somewhat charismatic guy who has a talent for raising funds who wants to find the next "big thing" and keeps finding people who have crackpot theories on the edge of science. None of which have turned out to work so far. The second is that he is a scam artist who knows just enough science to create a vaguely plausible sounding idea for a breakthrough and then scams people out of money to "develop the idea".
I think the second is significantly more likely, but we should know by Monday for sure. If by some chance this works, then he falls into category one. If this fails, then he can be forever dismissed as category two. There is no excuse for the secrecy games he is playing unless he knows already that this incrontrovertably works and is afraid of someone stealing credit for it.
If you have something like this that is genuine, but does not quite work, you should either keep it to yourself until you figure it out or go completely open so that someone else can figure out what is going on giving you the results you find so promising (and hopefully make the process into something useful).
If the Abiotic oil theory is correct, then the idea that "BP hit Abiotic oil" is an attempt to use poorly understood concepts to support a conspiracy theory. The abiotic oil theory is that most if not all oil is formed near the core as a side effect of the heat and pressure. It seems like every time the theory of abiogenic origin for oil is dismissed/debunked new evidence arises that does not fit nicely into the theory of biogenic origins of oil. So far, no one has come up with a theory of abiogenic origin of oil that makes useful predictions (such as where to find oil).
Most of liberals and progressives I know consider the Democratic party as corrupt as the Republicans when it comes to influence by corporations and the extremely wealthy, especially the finance industry. They may even be worse, though, the Republican vehemence for castrating the only force in this world capable of reigning in corporate excess (i.e., the federal government) probably balances it out.
You are another one of those people who want to fix problems by giving more power to those who created the problem in the first place. Corporate excess is possible because of government regulations which limit the ability of smaller businesses to compete with the larger politically favored corporations.
Sorry, the way you worded what you said in the post I replied to sounded, to me, like the people who think our political problems are a result of the "moneyed rich" controlling the political class. While I firmly believe that our political problems are a result of too many people who are willing to give the political class ever more power to fix problems (most of which were caused by the political class abusing the power they already have).
The answer is, it depends on the event and on the person who is saying that. However, there are ways to read between the lines to determine which it is. For example if an astronomer says that an observable supernova occurs approximately every 50 years (I pulled that number out of my ass), he/she means that in any given year there is a 1 in 50 chance that a star that can be observed if it supernovas will do so. If on the other hand, an astronomer says that the sunspot minimum is every approximately every 11 years, he/she means that the solar cycle that involves sunspots is approximately 11 years long.
In this case, what the scientists involved are saying is that, according to thier best estimates, this volcano has erupted every 300,000+/- years as far back as we can track it.
While there is something to what you say, there is a more important part to why Keynesian economics keeps getting pushed. Keynesian economics says that the answer to economic problems is to give more power to politicians and bureaucrats. Politicians and bureaucrats love this. When times are good they say, "See how good we have made things, give us more power and we will make it even better." When times are bad they say, "See how bad things are, just give us more power and we will make it better."
The number of people who fall for those two lines time after time is utterly astounding.
Even of you do accept the ludicrous notion that small number of people *could* have stopped it.
Actually, the notion is that, if a relatively small number of people had not prevented it, a somewhat larger group of people could have acted to ameliorate the consequences of the bubble popping.
The people who should be held accountable for the bubble and the negative consequences of it popping are not (at least for the most part) the bankers. The politicians who started the bubble inflating and then when other politicians tried to let some air out of the bubble used their positions to prevent that are the ones who should be held accountable. There are, also, bureaucrats at Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac who should be held to blame as well. Most of the bankers, while they were happily raking in the profits from the bubble, were not in a position to change the dynamics of it.
What I find most interesting about those who blame the bankers for the situation is that they tend to favor Democrats, just like the bankers most involved in the financial meltdown.
You are correct. There are many alternative ways to organize society other than the one used in the U.S.. The problem is that the further they get from the ideal that the U.S. system (and most, if not all, Western Democracies) is based on, the more they suck. That is actually the problem with the current system in the U.S., it has shifted too far from the ideal it is based on. Back in the late 1800s an idea of governance arose that held that certain decisions should be made "scientifically" by experts rather than being left to individuals or small groups. When the decisions made by these "scientific" experts caused problems (either because they did not know enough about the actual situation or because they were corrupt and venal), the chosen solution was to increase the power of those "scientific" experts to make decisions for people.
The biggest problem with this ruling is this, what happens when the studios identify an IP address as being used by the operators of Newzbin2 when in fact it is not?
I had run across that before, but had forgotten it. I am pretty sure that this particular person is not a white supremacist, but now that you have mentioned it, I will have to look for signs of that.
Actually, the best theory is that the "star" was a particular conjuction of planets that the astrologers of the region around Babylon would have taken to indicate that a particularly significant royal figure had been born in Israel/Judea/Palestine (it is unclear to me from the several articles I have seen on the subject what those astrologers would have referred to the region as--although it is improbable that they would have used the last as not even the Romans were using it yet at that time). Interestingly enough, there was such a conjunction that occurred around that time that would have appeared in the constellation that the Babylonian/Persian astrologers of the time associated with the Jews/Judea (I will use that designation here since it was the one being used by the Romans at the time).
I know of at least one couple that worship the Norse gods (and raise their children to do so as well). From conversations with them, I am under the impression that they are part of a group that does so. The reason I am unsure is because they have on a number of occassions referred to a group that they have been involved with in activities that I would tend to identify as religious, but they have been very ambiguous about the nature of the group (and even the activities).
Last I heard, CCD was linked pretty strongly to a combination of a fungus and a virus, occurring in every colony affected in the study (but individually not accounting for the effect).
With the rise of migratory bee-keeping (as mentioned in the summary) suspected of being the factor that has lead to the increased spread of these issues in bee colonies. My understanding was the key insight that led them to do this study was that someone correlated the increased incidence of bee colony die off with the increase in migratory bee-keeping. Migratory bee-keeping allowed for an explanation of the, relatively, recent increase in the incidence of bee colonies being infected with both the virus and the fungus.
Most universities are non-profits,they are not making "huge profits", to be exact, they are not making any profit. There are only a handful of for-profit universities and they are not a major driver in the high cost of getting a college degree.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that there are people who are trying to get the government to force me to change my behaviors because they believe in it. Because of those people, light bulbs are going to cost me more next year.
Now that even the previously skeptical are finally admitting climate change is happening- how do we prove that man is responsible- what would it take?
Well, first you would need to find someone who was previously skeptical who was now a believer, because Richard Muller was never skeptical of man-made global warming. He resigned from the Sierra Club over it in the 80s because they opposed nuclear power.
This guy had some actual scientific doubts about global warming,...
Then why did he write a book in 2008 advising whoever won the election that they would have to implement policies to address man-made global warming? And why did he resign from the Sierra Club back in the 80s over its opposition to nuclear energy when he believed that increased nuclear energy was the only way to avoid man-made global warming?
Except that it's been more than ten years and things haven't progressed as AGW proponents said they would.
Oh, so that explains the behavior of all of the big proponents of AGW. They become outspoken proponents of the government forcing other people to change their behaviors so they can feel comfortable not changing their own.
That was my thought as well. Typical business rule of thumb is that an employer charges somewhat more than 2x the rate they pay the workers. That is the basic rule for companies that hire people as employees and then charge customers and hourly fee to do work (mechanics, autobody repairmen, carpenters, etc). For contract employees, the agency usually charges somewhat more. I came across a well written column on being an independent contractor in IT, they said you should charge 3x what you would want as an employee for the work. As others have pointed out, it is easier to get rid of contract workers when the job is finished than it is to get rid of employees (especially government employees).
He has never been a skeptic of man-made global warming. He has been a proponent of the theory since the 1980s. He even wrote a book in 2008 called "Physics for the Futue President" in which he called he said the next President would have to institute policies to address it.
This is what most makes me question his motives. He has been preaching man-made global warming for decades, now he has a new study and is claiming that he was a "skeptic" until he completed this new study.
A denier isn't interested in what is real, just convincing people to follow them.
Which is what Richard Muller appears to be, except that he wasn't denying man-made global warming, he has been shilling for it. He has never demonstrated any skepticism of the theory. He has been promoting it. Even though he has been talking about global warming as "settled science" for a well over a decade, he has come out with a new study that supports what he has been saying all along, but that wouldn't make news, so he claims he was "skeptical" of man-made global warming until he did this study and "now, he is convinced".
That's ok, Richard Muller is on the big money side of this one, and has been all along.
The problem is that Richard Muller was never a global warming skeptic. He was talking about the "need to address man-made global warming" back in the 1980s. In 2008, he wrote a book,"Physics for Future Presidents", advising either John McCain or Barack Obama to prepare to address man-made global warming. This whole story is a fraud. The guy is claiming that he used to be a global warming skeptic, yet, he has been preaching Anthropogenic Global Warming pretty much as long as anyone.
Lots of people are replying to this saying that no one said that we had erased the federal debt, and that is correct. However, there are lots of people who believe that we were running a surplus at some point under Clinton, and that is not true either. Clinton never had a surplus. The size of the federal debt has increased every year I have been alive, including every year that Clinton was President. If there had been a surplus under Clinton, the size of federal debt would have decreased. It did not happen.
You do know that the Wright brothers more closely resemble Rossi than any current scientists?
That being said, Rossi appears to be a scam artist, not the next Wright brothers. There are two possible explanations for a guy like Rossi. The first is that he is a somewhat charismatic guy who has a talent for raising funds who wants to find the next "big thing" and keeps finding people who have crackpot theories on the edge of science. None of which have turned out to work so far. The second is that he is a scam artist who knows just enough science to create a vaguely plausible sounding idea for a breakthrough and then scams people out of money to "develop the idea".
I think the second is significantly more likely, but we should know by Monday for sure. If by some chance this works, then he falls into category one. If this fails, then he can be forever dismissed as category two. There is no excuse for the secrecy games he is playing unless he knows already that this incrontrovertably works and is afraid of someone stealing credit for it.
If you have something like this that is genuine, but does not quite work, you should either keep it to yourself until you figure it out or go completely open so that someone else can figure out what is going on giving you the results you find so promising (and hopefully make the process into something useful).
If the Abiotic oil theory is correct, then the idea that "BP hit Abiotic oil" is an attempt to use poorly understood concepts to support a conspiracy theory. The abiotic oil theory is that most if not all oil is formed near the core as a side effect of the heat and pressure. It seems like every time the theory of abiogenic origin for oil is dismissed/debunked new evidence arises that does not fit nicely into the theory of biogenic origins of oil. So far, no one has come up with a theory of abiogenic origin of oil that makes useful predictions (such as where to find oil).
Most of liberals and progressives I know consider the Democratic party as corrupt as the Republicans when it comes to influence by corporations and the extremely wealthy, especially the finance industry. They may even be worse, though, the Republican vehemence for castrating the only force in this world capable of reigning in corporate excess (i.e., the federal government) probably balances it out.
You are another one of those people who want to fix problems by giving more power to those who created the problem in the first place. Corporate excess is possible because of government regulations which limit the ability of smaller businesses to compete with the larger politically favored corporations.
Sorry, the way you worded what you said in the post I replied to sounded, to me, like the people who think our political problems are a result of the "moneyed rich" controlling the political class. While I firmly believe that our political problems are a result of too many people who are willing to give the political class ever more power to fix problems (most of which were caused by the political class abusing the power they already have).
The answer is, it depends on the event and on the person who is saying that. However, there are ways to read between the lines to determine which it is. For example if an astronomer says that an observable supernova occurs approximately every 50 years (I pulled that number out of my ass), he/she means that in any given year there is a 1 in 50 chance that a star that can be observed if it supernovas will do so. If on the other hand, an astronomer says that the sunspot minimum is every approximately every 11 years, he/she means that the solar cycle that involves sunspots is approximately 11 years long.
In this case, what the scientists involved are saying is that, according to thier best estimates, this volcano has erupted every 300,000+/- years as far back as we can track it.
While there is something to what you say, there is a more important part to why Keynesian economics keeps getting pushed. Keynesian economics says that the answer to economic problems is to give more power to politicians and bureaucrats. Politicians and bureaucrats love this. When times are good they say, "See how good we have made things, give us more power and we will make it even better." When times are bad they say, "See how bad things are, just give us more power and we will make it better."
The number of people who fall for those two lines time after time is utterly astounding.
Even of you do accept the ludicrous notion that small number of people *could* have stopped it.
Actually, the notion is that, if a relatively small number of people had not prevented it, a somewhat larger group of people could have acted to ameliorate the consequences of the bubble popping.
The people who should be held accountable for the bubble and the negative consequences of it popping are not (at least for the most part) the bankers. The politicians who started the bubble inflating and then when other politicians tried to let some air out of the bubble used their positions to prevent that are the ones who should be held accountable. There are, also, bureaucrats at Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac who should be held to blame as well. Most of the bankers, while they were happily raking in the profits from the bubble, were not in a position to change the dynamics of it.
What I find most interesting about those who blame the bankers for the situation is that they tend to favor Democrats, just like the bankers most involved in the financial meltdown.
You are correct. There are many alternative ways to organize society other than the one used in the U.S.. The problem is that the further they get from the ideal that the U.S. system (and most, if not all, Western Democracies) is based on, the more they suck. That is actually the problem with the current system in the U.S., it has shifted too far from the ideal it is based on. Back in the late 1800s an idea of governance arose that held that certain decisions should be made "scientifically" by experts rather than being left to individuals or small groups. When the decisions made by these "scientific" experts caused problems (either because they did not know enough about the actual situation or because they were corrupt and venal), the chosen solution was to increase the power of those "scientific" experts to make decisions for people.
The biggest problem with this ruling is this, what happens when the studios identify an IP address as being used by the operators of Newzbin2 when in fact it is not?
I had run across that before, but had forgotten it. I am pretty sure that this particular person is not a white supremacist, but now that you have mentioned it, I will have to look for signs of that.
Actually, the best theory is that the "star" was a particular conjuction of planets that the astrologers of the region around Babylon would have taken to indicate that a particularly significant royal figure had been born in Israel/Judea/Palestine (it is unclear to me from the several articles I have seen on the subject what those astrologers would have referred to the region as--although it is improbable that they would have used the last as not even the Romans were using it yet at that time). Interestingly enough, there was such a conjunction that occurred around that time that would have appeared in the constellation that the Babylonian/Persian astrologers of the time associated with the Jews/Judea (I will use that designation here since it was the one being used by the Romans at the time).
I know of at least one couple that worship the Norse gods (and raise their children to do so as well). From conversations with them, I am under the impression that they are part of a group that does so. The reason I am unsure is because they have on a number of occassions referred to a group that they have been involved with in activities that I would tend to identify as religious, but they have been very ambiguous about the nature of the group (and even the activities).
Last I heard, CCD was linked pretty strongly to a combination of a fungus and a virus, occurring in every colony affected in the study (but individually not accounting for the effect).
With the rise of migratory bee-keeping (as mentioned in the summary) suspected of being the factor that has lead to the increased spread of these issues in bee colonies. My understanding was the key insight that led them to do this study was that someone correlated the increased incidence of bee colony die off with the increase in migratory bee-keeping. Migratory bee-keeping allowed for an explanation of the, relatively, recent increase in the incidence of bee colonies being infected with both the virus and the fungus.
Most universities are non-profits,they are not making "huge profits", to be exact, they are not making any profit. There are only a handful of for-profit universities and they are not a major driver in the high cost of getting a college degree.