Global warming is not based merely on correlation studies. It has a direct and well understood physical cause, which is the greenhouse effect. (What is less understood is the climate system feedbacks which modify the greenhouse effect.) And climate scientists can indeed say with a high degree of confidence that the recent warming is due mostly to human activities. This evidence comes from physical reasoning as well as observational measurements (such as the stratospheric cooling signature of the enhanced greenhouse effect), as well as a quantification of manmade and natural sources of warming and cooling.
Well, purely scientific reasons for one. Climate science existed long before global warming was a concern.
Another reason is to inform adaptation. No matter what policy is realistically put in place, at least some more climate change is expected to occur. People are going to have to adapt to whatever change is not prevented. It's thus important to improve our understanding of what may happen. It also tells us how large and how fast a policy response is required, although as you note, we are not yet even attempting the minimum recommended policy.
Look at the caption on your graph. Hansen's Scenario A is a high emissions scenario which does not correspond to the emissions which actually occurred. If you want to legitimately test the skill of a climate model, you need to compare apples to apples. In this case, Hansen's Scenario B is the one that most closely corresponded to the real emissions trajectory. (Since Hansen is a climate scientist, not an economist, he gave a range of possible emissions scenarios and did not claim the world would follow any specific one of them.) Even Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit acknowledges this.
Your snide reference to "Saint Gore" indicates that your skepticism has more to do with your emotional biases than with any true scientific motivation. And citing a graph which makes a point of comparing a single month's temperature to another month's temperature makes me question your critical thinking skills. (Well, choosing to get your "science" from skeptic web sites instead of from the scientific literature is the main reason to question your criticial thinking skills.) But if you want to read some science, you could start here.
And by that logic, I don't see anything in the constitution that expressly forbids government officials from raping you and taking advantage of your daughters, as long as they don't quarter troops or do unreasonable search and seizure.
Way to miss the point. Read my comment before telling what its "logic" is.
There are plenty of other laws which forbid such things. Just because it's not un-Constitutional doesn't mean it's illegal.
Just because it's not forbidden expressly doesn't mean the government should be able to do it.
I didn't say the government should be able to do it. I just said there isn't anything obviously un-Constitutional about it.
Halliburton, you magnificient bastard! Making patent trolls pay you license fees for violating your patent trolling patent? I revel in your sheer self-referential evilness. My hat is off to you. That takes huge balls — I think I saw one of them chasing Indy in a Peruvian temple.
As I already pointed out, the previous poster's interpretation is not the interpretation the courts have ruled. The Supreme Court's interpretation is the law, by definition.
As another poster in this thread pointed out, they did change the text of their web site. I didn't make up what they said. I pasted it straight off the page I linked.
Um, you may have noticed the thousands of activities the federal government routinely does. Such as give out tuition tax credits. None of these have been ruled unconstitutional, despite not being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
I know what it says, and my point stands. Constitutional law does not hold that the federal government is forbidden from doing everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Yeah, is this where yet another libertarian nutjob is going to claim the 10th Amendment forbids the government from giving tuition assistance?
Sure, the Constitution won't let the government give out tax credits in exchange for, say, forfeiting your right to trial by jury. That's not even remotely what's being proposed here.
From what I've heard Obama say on the matter, I think that is exactly the context here: he thinks "serving your country" isn't something that should be restricted to the military.
Now, your resume-ruining comment may be correct, but it's not clear to me that "ruining people's resumes", or making service a job, is the best argument against such a proposal. (Especially the former: against the resume-ruining you have to weigh the effects of having vastly more service available. And it just sounds weird. Should we avoid training more C++ programmers because more people with C++ experience would ruin the resumes of existing C++ programmers? There are plenty of other things you can do to improve your resume anyway.)
It's the "mandatory" part that is the problem, IMHO. (Although it's not mandatory for college students.)
The government already gives out tuition assistance (e.g., Stafford loans) to students attending private colleges, including religious-affiliated ones. I don't imagine a tuition tax credit would be different. I don't think it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause if it's a tax credit to the student, not the college, and the student can freely choose whether or not to attend the college. This is kind of tangled up in the voucher controversy in K-12 education, though.
Anyway, I spoke too loosely. The Constitution would forbid the government from giving out college tuition credits in exchange for, say, waiving your Fourth Amendment rights.
Everything not expressly allowed for our government to do in the constitution is forbidden. That's how it works, not the backwards interpretation people usually try to claim.
The fact is, that's not how it works, nor how it has ever worked in our government, nor the interpretation the courts have ruled. This has nothing to do with college tuition; it's just the excuse libertarian wackaloons use to claim that everything the government does is illegal. Well, good luck with that. But constitutional law disagrees with you.
The Tenth Amendment doesn't prevent the federal government from giving out tuition credits, and it already does so. Along with about a billion other functions not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
It's this part: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
As another poster pointed out, this is a rather quaint interpretation of the 10th amendment, and one that is at odds with how the courts have actually ruled. The 10th amendment doesn't forbid the federal government from giving tuition credits.
You tell me. I don't see anything in the Constitution which forbids the government from giving out college tuition credits for any reason. And the community service for college students isn't mandatory.
Read the actual page the GP was quoting (here). That was a real quote, not made-up text: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
I think this entire article is a load of attention seeking BS, and I will not believe a word of it until I see a proper peer-reviewed research paper in a medical journal that debunks stretching.
Geeze. I've noticed a certain hyper-skepticism among Slashdotters. Please note that the New York Times is not known for trumping up pseudoscience with no support in the literature.
Others have responded that the article is not "debunking stretching", just pointing out problems with certain kinds of stretching. And at least one other poster gave references, some of whom involved people interviewed for TFA. More specifically with respect to the studies mentioned in TFA:
In addition to the other responses, a photon here isn't going to be entangled with any distant photons. Entanglement is delicate to maintain. Other particles can't be allowed to interact randomly with the entangled pair. Even in the vacuum of space, over light years, there is plenty of dust, other photons, etc. to ruin the entanglement.
No, a Big Rip isn't the currently preferred scenario. An accelerating expansion due dark energy, yes. But one that accelerates so fast as to ultimately rip apart matter requires an extreme form of "phantom dark energy", which is not observationally favored.
I don't waste my time arguing with creationist nutjobs like arminw, but just for the sake of scientific accuracy, you should know that cosmological redshift is NOT quantized into discrete redshifts. The people who claim so don't even understand what "quantization" means.
In the past there has been some weak evidence of a periodicity in redshifts in small samples of galaxies. "Periodicity in redshift" means that galaxies are more likely to be found at multiples of certain redshifts than others. It does not mean that the redshifts are quantized, meaning they only occur in discrete multiples. Even if you accept the claimed periodicity, there are most certainly plenty of galaxies (the vast majority, in fact) which occur at redshifts other than periodic multiples.
The studies which purported to find periodicities didn't all agree with each other as to which redshifts were the peaks. That's a hallmark of data-mining a spurious signal out of noise, a classic outcome of small-sample statistics. When you take into account any of the following factors (1) large sample sizes (we now observe far more galaxies than when those original claims were made), (2) the existence of large scale structure (you're going to see more galaxies at certain distances if that's where a supergalactic cluster is located), (3) sample selection bias, the "effect" goes away.
You should also note that periodicities in redshift do not contradict the evidence in favor of the expansion of the universe, either. Even if they existed, the most direct interpretation is that there is inhomogeneous large scale structure formation (which we already know there is, see point 2 above).
Slashdot Mirror
Global warming is not based merely on correlation studies. It has a direct and well understood physical cause, which is the greenhouse effect. (What is less understood is the climate system feedbacks which modify the greenhouse effect.) And climate scientists can indeed say with a high degree of confidence that the recent warming is due mostly to human activities. This evidence comes from physical reasoning as well as observational measurements (such as the stratospheric cooling signature of the enhanced greenhouse effect), as well as a quantification of manmade and natural sources of warming and cooling.
Why do climate modelling?
Well, purely scientific reasons for one. Climate science existed long before global warming was a concern.
Another reason is to inform adaptation. No matter what policy is realistically put in place, at least some more climate change is expected to occur. People are going to have to adapt to whatever change is not prevented. It's thus important to improve our understanding of what may happen. It also tells us how large and how fast a policy response is required, although as you note, we are not yet even attempting the minimum recommended policy.
Look at the caption on your graph. Hansen's Scenario A is a high emissions scenario which does not correspond to the emissions which actually occurred. If you want to legitimately test the skill of a climate model, you need to compare apples to apples. In this case, Hansen's Scenario B is the one that most closely corresponded to the real emissions trajectory. (Since Hansen is a climate scientist, not an economist, he gave a range of possible emissions scenarios and did not claim the world would follow any specific one of them.) Even Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit acknowledges this.
Your snide reference to "Saint Gore" indicates that your skepticism has more to do with your emotional biases than with any true scientific motivation. And citing a graph which makes a point of comparing a single month's temperature to another month's temperature makes me question your critical thinking skills. (Well, choosing to get your "science" from skeptic web sites instead of from the scientific literature is the main reason to question your criticial thinking skills.) But if you want to read some science, you could start here.
And by that logic, I don't see anything in the constitution that expressly forbids government officials from raping you and taking advantage of your daughters, as long as they don't quarter troops or do unreasonable search and seizure.
Way to miss the point. Read my comment before telling what its "logic" is.
There are plenty of other laws which forbid such things. Just because it's not un-Constitutional doesn't mean it's illegal.
Just because it's not forbidden expressly doesn't mean the government should be able to do it.
I didn't say the government should be able to do it. I just said there isn't anything obviously un-Constitutional about it.
Halliburton, you magnificient bastard! Making patent trolls pay you license fees for violating your patent trolling patent? I revel in your sheer self-referential evilness. My hat is off to you. That takes huge balls — I think I saw one of them chasing Indy in a Peruvian temple.
As I already pointed out, the previous poster's interpretation is not the interpretation the courts have ruled. The Supreme Court's interpretation is the law, by definition.
Either you and the GP lied, or it's an evolving site, run by volunteers, responding to feedback/criticism
The text changed. I pasted in the text which existed at the time, as did the OP. But thanks for being an asshole.
As another poster in this thread pointed out, they did change the text of their web site. I didn't make up what they said. I pasted it straight off the page I linked.
Um, you may have noticed the thousands of activities the federal government routinely does. Such as give out tuition tax credits. None of these have been ruled unconstitutional, despite not being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
I know what it says, and my point stands. Constitutional law does not hold that the federal government is forbidden from doing everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Yeah, is this where yet another libertarian nutjob is going to claim the 10th Amendment forbids the government from giving tuition assistance?
Sure, the Constitution won't let the government give out tax credits in exchange for, say, forfeiting your right to trial by jury. That's not even remotely what's being proposed here.
From what I've heard Obama say on the matter, I think that is exactly the context here: he thinks "serving your country" isn't something that should be restricted to the military.
Now, your resume-ruining comment may be correct, but it's not clear to me that "ruining people's resumes", or making service a job, is the best argument against such a proposal. (Especially the former: against the resume-ruining you have to weigh the effects of having vastly more service available. And it just sounds weird. Should we avoid training more C++ programmers because more people with C++ experience would ruin the resumes of existing C++ programmers? There are plenty of other things you can do to improve your resume anyway.)
It's the "mandatory" part that is the problem, IMHO. (Although it's not mandatory for college students.)
The government already gives out tuition assistance (e.g., Stafford loans) to students attending private colleges, including religious-affiliated ones. I don't imagine a tuition tax credit would be different. I don't think it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause if it's a tax credit to the student, not the college, and the student can freely choose whether or not to attend the college. This is kind of tangled up in the voucher controversy in K-12 education, though.
Anyway, I spoke too loosely. The Constitution would forbid the government from giving out college tuition credits in exchange for, say, waiving your Fourth Amendment rights.
Everything not expressly allowed for our government to do in the constitution is forbidden. That's how it works, not the backwards interpretation people usually try to claim.
The fact is, that's not how it works, nor how it has ever worked in our government, nor the interpretation the courts have ruled. This has nothing to do with college tuition; it's just the excuse libertarian wackaloons use to claim that everything the government does is illegal. Well, good luck with that. But constitutional law disagrees with you.
The Tenth Amendment doesn't prevent the federal government from giving out tuition credits, and it already does so. Along with about a billion other functions not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
It's this part: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
As another poster pointed out, this is a rather quaint interpretation of the 10th amendment, and one that is at odds with how the courts have actually ruled. The 10th amendment doesn't forbid the federal government from giving tuition credits.
It looks like it will be mandatory for middle and high school students, the way it's worded ("require").
You tell me. I don't see anything in the Constitution which forbids the government from giving out college tuition credits for any reason. And the community service for college students isn't mandatory.
From the page, it appears the mandatory community service is for students.
Read the actual page the GP was quoting (here). That was a real quote, not made-up text: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
I think this entire article is a load of attention seeking BS, and I will not believe a word of it until I see a proper peer-reviewed research paper in a medical journal that debunks stretching.
Geeze. I've noticed a certain hyper-skepticism among Slashdotters. Please note that the New York Times is not known for trumping up pseudoscience with no support in the literature.
Others have responded that the article is not "debunking stretching", just pointing out problems with certain kinds of stretching. And at least one other poster gave references, some of whom involved people interviewed for TFA. More specifically with respect to the studies mentioned in TFA:
The article cites Duane Knudson, a kinesiology professor at CSU. Peer reviewed research paper.
The article mentions a Las Vegas stretching study. Peer reviewed research paper.
The article mentions Malachy McHugh, a researcher in NYC. Peer reviewed research paper.
The article mentions a collegiate volleyball study. Peer reviewed research paper.
And so on.
In addition to the other responses, a photon here isn't going to be entangled with any distant photons. Entanglement is delicate to maintain. Other particles can't be allowed to interact randomly with the entangled pair. Even in the vacuum of space, over light years, there is plenty of dust, other photons, etc. to ruin the entanglement.
No, a Big Rip isn't the currently preferred scenario. An accelerating expansion due dark energy, yes. But one that accelerates so fast as to ultimately rip apart matter requires an extreme form of "phantom dark energy", which is not observationally favored.
I don't waste my time arguing with creationist nutjobs like arminw, but just for the sake of scientific accuracy, you should know that cosmological redshift is NOT quantized into discrete redshifts. The people who claim so don't even understand what "quantization" means.
In the past there has been some weak evidence of a periodicity in redshifts in small samples of galaxies. "Periodicity in redshift" means that galaxies are more likely to be found at multiples of certain redshifts than others. It does not mean that the redshifts are quantized, meaning they only occur in discrete multiples. Even if you accept the claimed periodicity, there are most certainly plenty of galaxies (the vast majority, in fact) which occur at redshifts other than periodic multiples.
The studies which purported to find periodicities didn't all agree with each other as to which redshifts were the peaks. That's a hallmark of data-mining a spurious signal out of noise, a classic outcome of small-sample statistics. When you take into account any of the following factors (1) large sample sizes (we now observe far more galaxies than when those original claims were made), (2) the existence of large scale structure (you're going to see more galaxies at certain distances if that's where a supergalactic cluster is located), (3) sample selection bias, the "effect" goes away.
You should also note that periodicities in redshift do not contradict the evidence in favor of the expansion of the universe, either. Even if they existed, the most direct interpretation is that there is inhomogeneous large scale structure formation (which we already know there is, see point 2 above).
See here for what the heat death of the universe would be like.