The jurisdictions with sales taxes should get together and create an internet sales tax clearinghouse. Set it up so the seller can send the necessary information to the clearinghouse at the time of sale and it returns the amount of sales tax delivered based on the address of delivery and the kind of item being bought. The seller adds it to the bill and sends the tax payments it receives to the clearinghouse that then distributes it to the proper jurisdictions. All it would require is a big database of the different taxes which would be the responsibility of the taxing jurisdiction to keep updated. Then a relatively quick and simple calculation would compute the tax owed. The seller could keep track of what it owes and send a payment to the clearinghouse once a month or so. I could even see brick and mortar stores using the system.
With more and more purchases being made online you shouldn't be able to avoid the taxes you owe just because you make purchases that way. If nothing else it's unfair to the people who are paying sales or use taxes. I know a lot of you think of taxes as thievery but I look at it as the dues you pay for living in a civilized society.
I see, you think concern over high taxes and loss of freedom overrides scientific evidence. Just wait and see how much it costs you in money and freedom as the effects of global warming and climate change continue to mount.
I don't understand what Pascal's wager has to do with falsifiability. It is merely a tool that someone without understanding might use to establish their position.
As far as your first link, models don't need to be falsifiable. Climate science doesn't depend on models. They are tools that scientists use to help understand the system. The things geekoid listed are the sorts of things that need to be falsified.
Real skeptics are willing to accept the evidence when it is presented to them. Witness the BEST project.
As for Feynman he may well have criticized climate scientists but he would have been even more critical of the "skeptics" because they bring no evidence to the table.
In one sense climate is the envelope within which weather is expected to vary. As long as 95% of the observations are within the 95% confidence range of the models then they are doing a reasonable job.
Climate doesn't change for magical reasons but rather for actual physical reasons. That is exactly what climate scientists are studying, the physical processes that make up our climate.
The volcano argument again! While it wasn't a supervolcano the largest eruption of the past 100 years, Mount Pinatubo in 1991 emitted about 42 million tonnes of CO2 compared to human emissions of 23 billion tonnes in 1991. So Mount Pinatubo was 0.2% of human emissions that year. If volcanoes are so influential why don't we see spikes in CO2 levels around major eruptions?
It is so simple to see that climate scientists donâ(TM)t have an inkling of a clue as to the cause of climate change. Climate change is obviously happening, we just donâ(TM)t have any real evidence as to the true cause. Example: CO2 levels only rise after warming occurs, not the other way around as some scientists ascertain. That basically sinks their entire argument, They need to do more research, bottom line.
If CO2 levels always lag temperatures then I want to know what was the warming that caused the current rise in CO2 to levels that are unprecedented in over a million years? It's one thing to make that claim but another to back it up with actual evidence.
Soros spends billions annually promotong and funding Leftist causes. He wants chaos in the US. The US is Soros' next nation in his crosshairs to collapse after the five previous nations he caused to collapse.
How come no one ever mentions the actual national governments he helped cause the collapse of? Could it be because it doesn't fit your narrative? Just for the record the governments Soros helped end include the communist government of Poland, the communist government of Czechoslovakia, the communist government of Hungary and a couple of other eastern European communist governments I have a hard time remembering. So do you think helping cause those governments to collapse was a bad thing?
I doubt it. The sun is a G-type main sequence star. It's normal evolution means that it gets hotter and larger as it ages although at the current stage it is a very slow process.
There is plenty of room for honest skeptics. But when you keep asking the same questions over and over because you don't like and won't accept the answers you get that is not skepticism. At some point you have to provide some scientific backing to your skepticism or your just a denier.
Ok, we know about the PETM. Now you show how a period where the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon was less than 1/10th of the current rate is applicable to today's situation.
It's pompous assholes like you that think your species can actually change the climate in a matter of years.
I'm glad you and your kind will die one day.
Pompous assholes like you who think your species can't change the climate in a matter of decades and centuries despite what the scientists tell you are going to die too. Given the future that climate scientists tell us is coming your group will probably dwindle to nothingness relatively soon.
It's much worse than that. The real problem is how people calling themselves 'scientists', yet who at the same time refuse to allow their theories to be scrutinized, and who 'adjust' their collected data, and who claim that 'the science is settled', have managed to absolutely ruin the reputation of science and scientists in general. Scientists and researchers used to be among the most respected and trusted people around. Now they're seen more as minor political stooges and tyrants rather than as objective knowledge-seekers. Modern science is now considered a form of religion by many people because of how any sort of questioning is quashed, and how little trust people have in scientists.
What a crock. Climate science is one of the most open sciences out there. You are welcome to scrutinize their theories but you need to use science to do it. The raw data is available. The reasons and ways they adjust the data are in the published literature. Climate science deniers are just butthurt because they have no effective way to counter the information climate scientists give us. If they did they would have used it by now. Refusing to accept the answers climate scientists present because you don't like the political implications is the opposite of science.
First it was global warming. Then that wasnâ(TM)t proven so it shifted to climate change. Seems suspicious that there are a lot of people making a lot of money and fame off of something they canâ(TM)t even be consistent about.
What goal post shift? The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988.
In 1956 Gilbert Plass wrote a paper titled: "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
Climate change is a result of the global warming that is happening.
They do make a lot of money, unlike real scientists that have to compete for the leftovers, the politcorrrect crowd just gets the lion share of the grants. That's how science is being controlled.
An assertion without evidence to back it up. Really just an assumption on your part. You know that the grants, at least from the Federal Government are all listed in detail on line. Why hasn't some person making this assumption actually done the work to compile and correlate the data about these grants to prove their assumption? Could it be they're afraid of being proven wrong?
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if a few people have started to put it together then quietly dropped the idea after looking at the grants that got approved or denied.
Of course climate science is falsifiable. But maybe not on a time scale you're comfortable with. Yet climate models continue to predict pretty much what has been happening even if they're not as precise as you'd like them to be.
The other thing to keep in mind is that climate science is composed of thousands of different theories brought together to form a more complete overall picture. It's those subtheories that you really need to falsify.
... I don't know about you, but I think it's better to go with the 800,000-year-old patterns that I can directly observe in ice core samples, rather than your wonky spreadsheets. And if you want to make an extraordinary claim that 800,000 years of climate cycles are suddenly coming to an end, brother, you'd better have a whale of a lot of extraordinary hard EVIDENCE. Not spreadsheets.
Of course those 800,000 years of ice age cycles have never seen an atmospheric CO2 level of 405 ppm. That might make a difference.
"Google's search page has become an especially contentious battleground between those who seek to educate the public on the established climate science and those who reject it."
I love the phrase, "established climate science". Feynman would have used it in a lecture.
I think it is pretty funny when climate science deniers try to use Feynman quotes to discredit climate science. I really doubt he'd be on your side in the issue. I think he'd ask you "Where is your evidence?" But I could be wrong.
The latency of low Earth orbit satellites is only around 2% of the latency of geosynchronous orbits and probably less than twice that of a terrestrial connection. In fact if the LEO satellite is right overhead it's probably less than 500 miles from you which probably gives a similar latency to terrestrial connections.
Those providers are all in geosynchronous orbit at 23,000 miles. Low Earth orbit satellites would be less than 500 miles which would cut the latency to around 2% of the geosynchronous latency. Quite an improvement I would say.
Slashdot Mirror
The jurisdictions with sales taxes should get together and create an internet sales tax clearinghouse. Set it up so the seller can send the necessary information to the clearinghouse at the time of sale and it returns the amount of sales tax delivered based on the address of delivery and the kind of item being bought. The seller adds it to the bill and sends the tax payments it receives to the clearinghouse that then distributes it to the proper jurisdictions. All it would require is a big database of the different taxes which would be the responsibility of the taxing jurisdiction to keep updated. Then a relatively quick and simple calculation would compute the tax owed. The seller could keep track of what it owes and send a payment to the clearinghouse once a month or so. I could even see brick and mortar stores using the system.
With more and more purchases being made online you shouldn't be able to avoid the taxes you owe just because you make purchases that way. If nothing else it's unfair to the people who are paying sales or use taxes. I know a lot of you think of taxes as thievery but I look at it as the dues you pay for living in a civilized society.
Not even close. Volcanic emissions each year are only around 1% of human emissions.
I see, you think concern over high taxes and loss of freedom overrides scientific evidence. Just wait and see how much it costs you in money and freedom as the effects of global warming and climate change continue to mount.
I don't understand what Pascal's wager has to do with falsifiability. It is merely a tool that someone without understanding might use to establish their position.
As far as your first link, models don't need to be falsifiable. Climate science doesn't depend on models. They are tools that scientists use to help understand the system. The things geekoid listed are the sorts of things that need to be falsified.
Real skeptics are willing to accept the evidence when it is presented to them. Witness the BEST project.
As for Feynman he may well have criticized climate scientists but he would have been even more critical of the "skeptics" because they bring no evidence to the table.
Actually during the past few record hot years the observations are firmly in the middle of the confidence range. Climate model projections compared to observations
In one sense climate is the envelope within which weather is expected to vary. As long as 95% of the observations are within the 95% confidence range of the models then they are doing a reasonable job.
Climate doesn't change for magical reasons but rather for actual physical reasons. That is exactly what climate scientists are studying, the physical processes that make up our climate.
The volcano argument again! While it wasn't a supervolcano the largest eruption of the past 100 years, Mount Pinatubo in 1991 emitted about 42 million tonnes of CO2 compared to human emissions of 23 billion tonnes in 1991. So Mount Pinatubo was 0.2% of human emissions that year. If volcanoes are so influential why don't we see spikes in CO2 levels around major eruptions?
It is so simple to see that climate scientists donâ(TM)t have an inkling of a clue as to the cause of climate change. Climate change is obviously happening, we just donâ(TM)t have any real evidence as to the true cause. Example: CO2 levels only rise after warming occurs, not the other way around as some scientists ascertain. That basically sinks their entire argument, They need to do more research, bottom line.
If CO2 levels always lag temperatures then I want to know what was the warming that caused the current rise in CO2 to levels that are unprecedented in over a million years? It's one thing to make that claim but another to back it up with actual evidence.
Soros spends billions annually promotong and funding Leftist causes. He wants chaos in the US. The US is Soros' next nation in his crosshairs to collapse after the five previous nations he caused to collapse.
How come no one ever mentions the actual national governments he helped cause the collapse of? Could it be because it doesn't fit your narrative? Just for the record the governments Soros helped end include the communist government of Poland, the communist government of Czechoslovakia, the communist government of Hungary and a couple of other eastern European communist governments I have a hard time remembering. So do you think helping cause those governments to collapse was a bad thing?
I doubt it. The sun is a G-type main sequence star. It's normal evolution means that it gets hotter and larger as it ages although at the current stage it is a very slow process.
There is plenty of room for honest skeptics. But when you keep asking the same questions over and over because you don't like and won't accept the answers you get that is not skepticism. At some point you have to provide some scientific backing to your skepticism or your just a denier.
Ok, we know about the PETM. Now you show how a period where the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon was less than 1/10th of the current rate is applicable to today's situation.
It's pompous assholes like you that think your species can actually change the climate in a matter of years.
I'm glad you and your kind will die one day.
Pompous assholes like you who think your species can't change the climate in a matter of decades and centuries despite what the scientists tell you are going to die too. Given the future that climate scientists tell us is coming your group will probably dwindle to nothingness relatively soon.
It's much worse than that. The real problem is how people calling themselves 'scientists', yet who at the same time refuse to allow their theories to be scrutinized, and who 'adjust' their collected data, and who claim that 'the science is settled', have managed to absolutely ruin the reputation of science and scientists in general. Scientists and researchers used to be among the most respected and trusted people around. Now they're seen more as minor political stooges and tyrants rather than as objective knowledge-seekers. Modern science is now considered a form of religion by many people because of how any sort of questioning is quashed, and how little trust people have in scientists.
What a crock. Climate science is one of the most open sciences out there. You are welcome to scrutinize their theories but you need to use science to do it. The raw data is available. The reasons and ways they adjust the data are in the published literature. Climate science deniers are just butthurt because they have no effective way to counter the information climate scientists give us. If they did they would have used it by now. Refusing to accept the answers climate scientists present because you don't like the political implications is the opposite of science.
First it was global warming. Then that wasnâ(TM)t proven so it shifted to climate change. Seems suspicious that there are a lot of people making a lot of money and fame off of something they canâ(TM)t even be consistent about.
What goal post shift? The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988.
In 1956 Gilbert Plass wrote a paper titled: "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
Climate change is a result of the global warming that is happening.
They do make a lot of money, unlike real scientists that have to compete for the leftovers, the politcorrrect crowd just gets the lion share of the grants. That's how science is being controlled.
An assertion without evidence to back it up. Really just an assumption on your part. You know that the grants, at least from the Federal Government are all listed in detail on line. Why hasn't some person making this assumption actually done the work to compile and correlate the data about these grants to prove their assumption? Could it be they're afraid of being proven wrong?
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if a few people have started to put it together then quietly dropped the idea after looking at the grants that got approved or denied.
Of course climate science is falsifiable. But maybe not on a time scale you're comfortable with. Yet climate models continue to predict pretty much what has been happening even if they're not as precise as you'd like them to be.
The other thing to keep in mind is that climate science is composed of thousands of different theories brought together to form a more complete overall picture. It's those subtheories that you really need to falsify.
I don't know about you, but I think it's better to go with the 800,000-year-old patterns that I can directly observe in ice core samples, rather than your wonky spreadsheets. And if you want to make an extraordinary claim that 800,000 years of climate cycles are suddenly coming to an end, brother, you'd better have a whale of a lot of extraordinary hard EVIDENCE. Not spreadsheets.
Of course those 800,000 years of ice age cycles have never seen an atmospheric CO2 level of 405 ppm. That might make a difference.
But it doesn't change for magical reasons. There are physical processes behind those changes. That is exactly what climate scientists study.
When the observations are still within the 95% confidence range I'd say it's difficult to call them wrong.
"Google's search page has become an especially contentious battleground between those who seek to educate the public on the established climate science and those who reject it."
I love the phrase, "established climate science". Feynman would have used it in a lecture.
I think it is pretty funny when climate science deniers try to use Feynman quotes to discredit climate science. I really doubt he'd be on your side in the issue. I think he'd ask you "Where is your evidence?" But I could be wrong.
Well, we're still able to communicate with the Voyager spacecraft and the signal from them is on the order of 10^-16 watts.
The latency of low Earth orbit satellites is only around 2% of the latency of geosynchronous orbits and probably less than twice that of a terrestrial connection. In fact if the LEO satellite is right overhead it's probably less than 500 miles from you which probably gives a similar latency to terrestrial connections.
Those providers are all in geosynchronous orbit at 23,000 miles. Low Earth orbit satellites would be less than 500 miles which would cut the latency to around 2% of the geosynchronous latency. Quite an improvement I would say.
Chances are it won't make a difference but I hope he has a good space suit. I wonder if it's homemade like his rocket.