That's not a perfect analogy, but it's not too far off.
It's more like this. There's a classifieds forum which regular users can refresh once every 10 minutes. Special users with a paid subscription can refresh once per second.
You post "Bicycle wanted, will pay up to $500" and someone else posts "Bicycle for sale, $400" then the speedy special user buys the bicycle for $400 and puts it up for sale for $500 before you or the seller can refresh (at best, when they're not doing even shadier things like spamming the forum with fake Wanted posts etc).
Somehow this is supposed to produce value. I think it has a similar effect on the economy to either robbery or counterfeiting currency. I can see no way this produces any value.
I would like to add that a boulder fell on a mountain goat in Paraguay this morning and it was also a result of the Democrats' disastrous foreign policy.
Oh yeah that was definitely not smart. Pretty much only military aircraft are ever painted grey. No paint job short of a full livery with the correct identifying marks is an excuse for shooting down a plane, but...that didn't help.
Negative mass reacts oppositely to both gravity and intertia. Oddly, that means that negative mass still falls down in a gravitational field: The gravitational force is opposite, but negative mass responds negatively to force (a=F/m, where both F and m are negative). So negative mass particles repel each other gravitationally, but are attracted to positive mass objects.
Aw dammit, I was hoping we could build antigravity vehicles from this stuff...or at least some negative mass body panels to lighten up my car:-(
I can only assume your problem with the "97%" meta-study result was not considering those that didn't express a position on the issue in their abstract. They weren't counted either way. But if you're expecting that considering those would move the percentage downward, other studies suggest you'd be in for a nasty shock:
Next, how are the graphs not of the same thing? Both compare the predictions of various models with observed temperatures. The only difference is that the one I linked to takes the observed temperatures from 3 different institutions' sensor systems, and the one you linked to takes them from 2 satellites and 4 balloons. Also the date range on yours is slightly wider in both directions.
In case you weren't looking at the right one, it's this one specifically:
The study you linked to about overestimations basically makes the "only atmospheric warming" argument, which is what creates the illusion of "the pause." The UK's MET office has a nice page on this:
So did you not look at the graphs I link to, or do you take issue with them? They show that the IPCC predictions are very accurate. Are you going to argue atmospheric vs. oceanic warming? The IPCC has never admitted to a major inaccuracy (major being greater than 0.01C per decade - about 1% of the current error claimed by Roy Spencer's hogwash). And that admission has become the most overhyped played-out sound bite since "HIDE TEH DECLINEZ!!1!"
I am implying nothing of the sort. The ONLY think I was implying was that the climate models are flawed. I neither claimed or implied any kind of "conspiracy".
OK. Let's say the climate models are flawed. The world's scientists have been notified. Why do you think they've done nothing about it? Your implications logically lead to this question. Or, let me guess, you prefer not to speculate while making these insidious implications?
My weak passwords aren't actually weak but they're relatively simple, I use them for forums etc, my email has a STRONG password because it's the keys to the kingdom of all my accounts, and if I used online banking that would have a strong password as well.
Something that helps to make a simple password unique and stronger yet memorable is to come up with a way to mix in something from each site. For example you could postfix them with the dominant color on the site, for Slashdot that would be green.
The "observed" numbers in Spencer's graphs are cherry-picked from very specific sources. 4 balloons and 2 satellites out of all the sources available. If you use a more varied and meaningful set of sources, it all matches up. Again, it's garbage. Shit in graph form. And you ate the whole thing. If you knew what you were talking about, or weren't willfully ignorant, I wouldn't have to point this out.
You can tiptoe around writing the word "conspiracy" all you want but that's exactly what you're implying. You're saying that all the world's scientists are intentionally wrong about this in the face of what you consider to be damning evidence.
Anyone can shit out garbage in graph form. Here are some more graphs which on the face of it are just as good as yours, but if you do some research you'll find are not composed of bullshit, unlike yours.
There's this whole world where you can live in your delusion if you don't want out. You have to stop falling for paid shills like Anthony Watts and others who have been fooled by their ilk. They're making a sucker out of you. You're taking their word over 97% of scientists.
Which is an easier conspiracy to pull off, one involving tens of thousands of scientists around the world or one involving a handful of mostly American bloggers, most of which been outed for being on the take from conservative think-tanks and fossil fuel companies?
We live in different realities. All our best research so far suggests one of them is consistent with our best observations of reality, and that one of them is very inconsistent - or "wrong" and on a whole, becoming more wrong every day. That's why we see things so very differently.
Addendum: And if you do take the time to refute the supposed connection between the point presented in the post and the information in the link (or sometimes the info in the link itself), then you have fallen into a Research Glue Trap. Quick and easy for the trapper to lay down, nasty work for you to trudge through, and all it really accomplished was to waste your time and effort.
If they don't unequivocally keep proving something that supposedly has already been proven, they don't keep their jobs.
Yep that's why Einstein got fired from Science Inc. and died in obscurity. Whatever theory is established first becomes dogma forever, which is why we still believe in geocentrism, spontaneous generation and the classical elements.
People love to assume links contain valid information (based on headlines or URLs at most) rather than read them and check, so she could link to goatse every time and come across as an "informed skeptic" to some large fraction of readers.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a perfect analogy, but it's not too far off.
It's more like this. There's a classifieds forum which regular users can refresh once every 10 minutes. Special users with a paid subscription can refresh once per second.
You post "Bicycle wanted, will pay up to $500" and someone else posts "Bicycle for sale, $400" then the speedy special user buys the bicycle for $400 and puts it up for sale for $500 before you or the seller can refresh (at best, when they're not doing even shadier things like spamming the forum with fake Wanted posts etc).
Somehow this is supposed to produce value. I think it has a similar effect on the economy to either robbery or counterfeiting currency. I can see no way this produces any value.
Wasn't something like this done after the Flash Crash (or some other recent stock exchange fuckup?)
Exactly. Do your worst, black hats. The system's already rooted by Wall Street bankers.
I would like to add that a boulder fell on a mountain goat in Paraguay this morning and it was also a result of the Democrats' disastrous foreign policy.
Oh yeah that was definitely not smart. Pretty much only military aircraft are ever painted grey. No paint job short of a full livery with the correct identifying marks is an excuse for shooting down a plane, but...that didn't help.
Hard work becomes easy without all those pesky government rules in the way! Imagine the possibilities!
Negative mass reacts oppositely to both gravity and intertia. Oddly, that means that negative mass still falls down in a gravitational field: The gravitational force is opposite, but negative mass responds negatively to force (a=F/m, where both F and m are negative). So negative mass particles repel each other gravitationally, but are attracted to positive mass objects.
Aw dammit, I was hoping we could build antigravity vehicles from this stuff...or at least some negative mass body panels to lighten up my car :-(
This funny-looking shellfish was one of Earth's apex predators at the time. How quaint.
Maybe her shirt had "women are dumb" written on it.
I can only assume your problem with the "97%" meta-study result was not considering those that didn't express a position on the issue in their abstract. They weren't counted either way. But if you're expecting that considering those would move the percentage downward, other studies suggest you'd be in for a nasty shock:
http://skepticalscience.com/97...
Next, how are the graphs not of the same thing? Both compare the predictions of various models with observed temperatures. The only difference is that the one I linked to takes the observed temperatures from 3 different institutions' sensor systems, and the one you linked to takes them from 2 satellites and 4 balloons. Also the date range on yours is slightly wider in both directions.
In case you weren't looking at the right one, it's this one specifically:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The study you linked to about overestimations basically makes the "only atmospheric warming" argument, which is what creates the illusion of "the pause." The UK's MET office has a nice page on this:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/re...
The Government Control Over All Autonomous Cars Act. It's a working title, we're trying to come up with a backronym for SAFECAR.
So did you not look at the graphs I link to, or do you take issue with them? They show that the IPCC predictions are very accurate. Are you going to argue atmospheric vs. oceanic warming? The IPCC has never admitted to a major inaccuracy (major being greater than 0.01C per decade - about 1% of the current error claimed by Roy Spencer's hogwash). And that admission has become the most overhyped played-out sound bite since "HIDE TEH DECLINEZ!!1!"
I am implying nothing of the sort. The ONLY think I was implying was that the climate models are flawed. I neither claimed or implied any kind of "conspiracy".
OK. Let's say the climate models are flawed. The world's scientists have been notified. Why do you think they've done nothing about it? Your implications logically lead to this question. Or, let me guess, you prefer not to speculate while making these insidious implications?
My weak passwords aren't actually weak but they're relatively simple, I use them for forums etc, my email has a STRONG password because it's the keys to the kingdom of all my accounts, and if I used online banking that would have a strong password as well.
Something that helps to make a simple password unique and stronger yet memorable is to come up with a way to mix in something from each site. For example you could postfix them with the dominant color on the site, for Slashdot that would be green.
I'm not disappointed. This is what I expect from those sociopaths. Don't be fooled by their clothes or trendy offices.
You can't bulldoze, but there are other options:
http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/...
And under what circumstances can a government (other than Israel's) bulldoze a house?
"Oooh look, incendiary rounds! Gotta try these out at the range!" - God
The "observed" numbers in Spencer's graphs are cherry-picked from very specific sources. 4 balloons and 2 satellites out of all the sources available. If you use a more varied and meaningful set of sources, it all matches up. Again, it's garbage. Shit in graph form. And you ate the whole thing. If you knew what you were talking about, or weren't willfully ignorant, I wouldn't have to point this out.
You can tiptoe around writing the word "conspiracy" all you want but that's exactly what you're implying. You're saying that all the world's scientists are intentionally wrong about this in the face of what you consider to be damning evidence.
Anyone can shit out garbage in graph form. Here are some more graphs which on the face of it are just as good as yours, but if you do some research you'll find are not composed of bullshit, unlike yours.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
(Jump to "Earth has warmed as expected")
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
There's this whole world where you can live in your delusion if you don't want out. You have to stop falling for paid shills like Anthony Watts and others who have been fooled by their ilk. They're making a sucker out of you. You're taking their word over 97% of scientists.
Which is an easier conspiracy to pull off, one involving tens of thousands of scientists around the world or one involving a handful of mostly American bloggers, most of which been outed for being on the take from conservative think-tanks and fossil fuel companies?
You say that like it's a bad thing, it was part of the system working to rigorously test new theories on fundamental laws of physics. And it worked.
Maybe their market research found that T&A would sell better than Chris Hemsworth's abs, leading to this decision.
Kinda breaks with Norse mythology too...
We live in different realities. All our best research so far suggests one of them is consistent with our best observations of reality, and that one of them is very inconsistent - or "wrong" and on a whole, becoming more wrong every day. That's why we see things so very differently.
I'm going back to my reality. See ya.
Addendum: And if you do take the time to refute the supposed connection between the point presented in the post and the information in the link (or sometimes the info in the link itself), then you have fallen into a Research Glue Trap. Quick and easy for the trapper to lay down, nasty work for you to trudge through, and all it really accomplished was to waste your time and effort.
Since you have never once showed me to be actually "spewing garbage", I don't think my credibility is the one in question here.
Of course. Nobody ever shows you spewing garbage, according to you. Just like Jenny McCarthy.
If they don't unequivocally keep proving something that supposedly has already been proven, they don't keep their jobs.
Yep that's why Einstein got fired from Science Inc. and died in obscurity. Whatever theory is established first becomes dogma forever, which is why we still believe in geocentrism, spontaneous generation and the classical elements.
People love to assume links contain valid information (based on headlines or URLs at most) rather than read them and check, so she could link to goatse every time and come across as an "informed skeptic" to some large fraction of readers.