Yes, it is possible that there exist explanations which would allow the preservation of the theory, just as in the time of Copernicus there existed explanations which allowed the preservation of the theory that the sun circled the earth. However, it is not enough to say, "There could be explanations." You have to actually propose what those explanations are. At this point, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime. It is possible that they are correct, but the evidence , as currently available, says that they are not. By the standard you are setting, nothing is ever disproven, because there could be variables which have not been taken into account.
Well, there are two ways to reach the OP's conclusion. The first is to examine the history of "campaign finance reform", where you discover that the re-election rate for incumbents has gone UP after the passage of each such bill. The second is to examine the nature of elections. An incumbent can use government funds in order to make his constituents aware of who he is. A challenger, on the other hand, needs to make people aware of who he/she is.
UM, Washington,DC and Chicago both used to have gun laws that basically made it impossible to someone who was not politically connected, or a member of certain other edge case groups, to legally possess a gun within city limits. These gun laws were over turned by the Supreme Court not that many years ago.
No, the negative correlation is not airtight disproof of the claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime. However, it puts the burden of proof on those who are making the claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime...and that proof needs to be more than "Well, this could be causing the decrease."
Jane Q Public's argument is sound. If the incidence of X increases while the incidence of Y decreases, X clearly does NOT cause Y. If X causes Y, then when X increases Y must also increase. The conclusion reached by Runaway1956 does not necessarily follow (it is a logical conclusion, although the logic is far from conclusive).
Jane Q Public's argument is basic application of the scientific principle. If we have increased gun ownership couple with decreased violent crime, the theory that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime is disproven. This is insufficient to prove any other theory (such as that proposed by Runaway1956), but it is sufficient to disprove that theory.
I'm sorry, but I do not trust the assertions of your source. I do not trust the newspaper that still brags about receiving a Pulitzer Prize for denying the Stalin era famines in the Ukraine and promoted Jayson Blair for publishing stories from towns he never visited. Feel free to Google "federal crop insurance" for yourself, rather than rely on sources with a vested interest in promoting climate change alarmism.
The cause of increased payouts for flood insurance is primarily due to the increase of the value of the properties in the flood plain..to the degree that any other contributing factor is insignificant. The cause of increased payouts for federal crop insurance is changes in the law...to the degree that any other contributing factor is insignificant. Neither of these facts mean that global warming is not happening, not do they mean that it is not caused by human activity. What these facts mean is that global warming alarmists are either misinformed or disingenuous to use the increased payouts as evidence of global warming (my bet would be that you are misinformed, but that your sources are disingenuous).
You are right, I have never seen one that for north...but that does not mean that they have not occurred. In fact, in my lifetime hurricanes hitting the northeast U.S. have been at historical lows. Before the 20th century, hurricanes hit the northeast with greater frequency and strength than they have since the middle of the 20th century until now.
The Farm Bill of 2008 drastically changed the way federal crop insurance works, meaning that as a result, payouts have increased. This is a result of a change in the law, not of an increase in damage.
There was no evidence in that article that either federal flood or crop insurance payouts have increased due to global warming, but no actual evidence (not that I would expect it in such an article). There was a claim that such destruction has been greater due to global warming. One of the questions the author asked was about short attention spans. I would ask the same about the author(of course, considering that the author is James Hansen. the answer is outright deception, not failure to be aware): in my lifetime, the strength and frequency of hurricanes hitting the U.S. Northeast have been at historical lows, yet the author claims that Hurricane Sandy is evidence of global warming.
The growth in Federal crop and flood insurance payouts is owing to...
The growth in Federal crop insurance payouts is primarily due to the fact that the 2008 Farm Bill introduced federal crop insurance (or at least as it is currently implemented) and that went into effect with the 2014 crop year. So, the rise in federal crop insurance payouts have NOTHING to do with global warming. Second the growth in federal flood insurance payouts is due to the increase in the value of developed properties in flood plains. Federal flood insurance was introduced in 1972. Since that time, largely as a result of federal flood insurance, there has been a steadily increasing trend toward placing expensive structures in the flood plains of the country. This results in the value of the properties being insured increasing, which leads to increased flood insurance payout. There are several other factors which contribute to those increased payouts. All of those factors make the impact of global warming on the amount of those payouts insignificant.
Let's see, you have clients who need software that only runs on Windows...and you ask why no competitor has come out with an OS to compete with Windows? Um maybe the answer is because there are so many business applications that only run on Windows?
Well, yes, but then the UK had a significant number of cases of humans getting the disease (137 cases over 8 years out of a population of approximately 60 million). On the other hand the U.S. has NOT had a significant number of cases (3 cases over 19 years out of a population of 300 million).
Then the police officer's lawyer did a bad job of defending him. If exculpatory evidence existed on the original recording, the lawyer should have requested it. If that portion of the recording no longer existed, the lawyer should have objected to the evidence being admitted AND made sure to make the jury aware that significant sections were not being presented. There are ways to mount a defense against such manipulation.
I am sorry, but you appeared to have missed my point. You initially said that this could be used to channel students into a program which would result in them making more money as adults. When someone pointed out that not everyone values making more money above all else, you responded "Well, fine. Then we can use it to make them more likely to help an old lady across the street." The problem is, which of those goals should the school system shoot for? And how do we as a society decide? Why should teachers decide what values are taught to the next generation? What makes them better qualified for that decision?
Ultimately, one of the problems with this program (and our education system in general) is, who gets to decide what values are used to decide what to teach our children?
I was simply making an example. Replace "make more money" with "more likely to help an old lady across the street" if it makes you feel better.
But that is the PROBLEM with this idea, It would be used to encourage children to follow the educational (and other) path which was determined as best for them by someone who may or may not share the values of their parents...or of the children. For that matter, the people determining what path the children should be encouraged to follow may not share the values of those in the community. And it is unlikely that what values are used to determine what path the children will be encouraged to follow will be open to evaluation. They will just use phrases, "But its for the good of the children."
The problem is that we know no such thing. What we know from history is that when we get too many dilettante sons of well-to-do people who have nothing better to do with their time, they will start a revolution that will kill lots of people, both rich and poor. I am unaware of any revolution that was the poor against the rich. Most revolutions have been led by the sons (and occasionally daughters) of the rich and most of the cannon-fodder were from the ranks of the disaffected middle class. In those cases the poor were mostly too busy providing for enough to eat to get caught up in revolution.
In other words, it is people like you, who are more concerned with punishing the rich than with helping the poor, who lead the revolutions which cause immense human misery on all classes. Of course, another point worth noting is that in those times and places where those bloodbaths took place the poor would have considered most of the "poor" in the U.S. today to be unspeakably wealthy.
What I was pointing out was that the person who was accused of making the slippery slope fallacy was proved to have not made any such thing only a few short minutes later when someone did EXACTLY what they had predicted would happen.
Slashdot Mirror
What confounding factors have not been taken into account?
Yes, it is possible that there exist explanations which would allow the preservation of the theory, just as in the time of Copernicus there existed explanations which allowed the preservation of the theory that the sun circled the earth. However, it is not enough to say, "There could be explanations." You have to actually propose what those explanations are. At this point, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime. It is possible that they are correct, but the evidence , as currently available, says that they are not. By the standard you are setting, nothing is ever disproven, because there could be variables which have not been taken into account.
Well, there are two ways to reach the OP's conclusion. The first is to examine the history of "campaign finance reform", where you discover that the re-election rate for incumbents has gone UP after the passage of each such bill. The second is to examine the nature of elections. An incumbent can use government funds in order to make his constituents aware of who he is. A challenger, on the other hand, needs to make people aware of who he/she is.
Those cities enacted gun control laws because they were already the most dangerous cities.
After which they became even more dangerous.
UM, Washington,DC and Chicago both used to have gun laws that basically made it impossible to someone who was not politically connected, or a member of certain other edge case groups, to legally possess a gun within city limits. These gun laws were over turned by the Supreme Court not that many years ago.
No, the negative correlation is not airtight disproof of the claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime. However, it puts the burden of proof on those who are making the claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime...and that proof needs to be more than "Well, this could be causing the decrease."
Jane Q Public's argument is sound. If the incidence of X increases while the incidence of Y decreases, X clearly does NOT cause Y. If X causes Y, then when X increases Y must also increase. The conclusion reached by Runaway1956 does not necessarily follow (it is a logical conclusion, although the logic is far from conclusive). Jane Q Public's argument is basic application of the scientific principle. If we have increased gun ownership couple with decreased violent crime, the theory that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime is disproven. This is insufficient to prove any other theory (such as that proposed by Runaway1956), but it is sufficient to disprove that theory.
I'm sorry, but I do not trust the assertions of your source. I do not trust the newspaper that still brags about receiving a Pulitzer Prize for denying the Stalin era famines in the Ukraine and promoted Jayson Blair for publishing stories from towns he never visited. Feel free to Google "federal crop insurance" for yourself, rather than rely on sources with a vested interest in promoting climate change alarmism.
The cause of increased payouts for flood insurance is primarily due to the increase of the value of the properties in the flood plain..to the degree that any other contributing factor is insignificant. The cause of increased payouts for federal crop insurance is changes in the law...to the degree that any other contributing factor is insignificant. Neither of these facts mean that global warming is not happening, not do they mean that it is not caused by human activity. What these facts mean is that global warming alarmists are either misinformed or disingenuous to use the increased payouts as evidence of global warming (my bet would be that you are misinformed, but that your sources are disingenuous).
You are right, I have never seen one that for north...but that does not mean that they have not occurred. In fact, in my lifetime hurricanes hitting the northeast U.S. have been at historical lows. Before the 20th century, hurricanes hit the northeast with greater frequency and strength than they have since the middle of the 20th century until now.
The Farm Bill of 2008 drastically changed the way federal crop insurance works, meaning that as a result, payouts have increased. This is a result of a change in the law, not of an increase in damage.
Linux is a strong competitor (or as strong as any competitor can be if no one ports their software to it).
Try surviving without salt
There was no evidence in that article that either federal flood or crop insurance payouts have increased due to global warming, but no actual evidence (not that I would expect it in such an article). There was a claim that such destruction has been greater due to global warming. One of the questions the author asked was about short attention spans. I would ask the same about the author(of course, considering that the author is James Hansen. the answer is outright deception, not failure to be aware): in my lifetime, the strength and frequency of hurricanes hitting the U.S. Northeast have been at historical lows, yet the author claims that Hurricane Sandy is evidence of global warming.
Well, yes, but that applies on both sides of the Atlantic
The growth in Federal crop and flood insurance payouts is owing to...
The growth in Federal crop insurance payouts is primarily due to the fact that the 2008 Farm Bill introduced federal crop insurance (or at least as it is currently implemented) and that went into effect with the 2014 crop year. So, the rise in federal crop insurance payouts have NOTHING to do with global warming. Second the growth in federal flood insurance payouts is due to the increase in the value of developed properties in flood plains. Federal flood insurance was introduced in 1972. Since that time, largely as a result of federal flood insurance, there has been a steadily increasing trend toward placing expensive structures in the flood plains of the country. This results in the value of the properties being insured increasing, which leads to increased flood insurance payout. There are several other factors which contribute to those increased payouts. All of those factors make the impact of global warming on the amount of those payouts insignificant.
Well, then I guess salt is poison.
Let's see, you have clients who need software that only runs on Windows...and you ask why no competitor has come out with an OS to compete with Windows? Um maybe the answer is because there are so many business applications that only run on Windows?
Well, yes, but then the UK had a significant number of cases of humans getting the disease (137 cases over 8 years out of a population of approximately 60 million). On the other hand the U.S. has NOT had a significant number of cases (3 cases over 19 years out of a population of 300 million).
Then the police officer's lawyer did a bad job of defending him. If exculpatory evidence existed on the original recording, the lawyer should have requested it. If that portion of the recording no longer existed, the lawyer should have objected to the evidence being admitted AND made sure to make the jury aware that significant sections were not being presented. There are ways to mount a defense against such manipulation.
I am sorry, but you appeared to have missed my point. You initially said that this could be used to channel students into a program which would result in them making more money as adults. When someone pointed out that not everyone values making more money above all else, you responded "Well, fine. Then we can use it to make them more likely to help an old lady across the street." The problem is, which of those goals should the school system shoot for? And how do we as a society decide? Why should teachers decide what values are taught to the next generation? What makes them better qualified for that decision?
Ultimately, one of the problems with this program (and our education system in general) is, who gets to decide what values are used to decide what to teach our children?
I was simply making an example. Replace "make more money" with "more likely to help an old lady across the street" if it makes you feel better.
But that is the PROBLEM with this idea, It would be used to encourage children to follow the educational (and other) path which was determined as best for them by someone who may or may not share the values of their parents...or of the children. For that matter, the people determining what path the children should be encouraged to follow may not share the values of those in the community. And it is unlikely that what values are used to determine what path the children will be encouraged to follow will be open to evaluation. They will just use phrases, "But its for the good of the children."
The problem is that we know no such thing. What we know from history is that when we get too many dilettante sons of well-to-do people who have nothing better to do with their time, they will start a revolution that will kill lots of people, both rich and poor. I am unaware of any revolution that was the poor against the rich. Most revolutions have been led by the sons (and occasionally daughters) of the rich and most of the cannon-fodder were from the ranks of the disaffected middle class. In those cases the poor were mostly too busy providing for enough to eat to get caught up in revolution.
In other words, it is people like you, who are more concerned with punishing the rich than with helping the poor, who lead the revolutions which cause immense human misery on all classes. Of course, another point worth noting is that in those times and places where those bloodbaths took place the poor would have considered most of the "poor" in the U.S. today to be unspeakably wealthy.
What I was pointing out was that the person who was accused of making the slippery slope fallacy was proved to have not made any such thing only a few short minutes later when someone did EXACTLY what they had predicted would happen.
Oh yeah, it is much better to make the rich suffer rather than make the poor better off.
His statement is not incorrect, from Cook's perspective, it WAS a mistake, even if it was what the buyer intended.