"Why this isn't climate change at all! It's *removes mask from monster* Michael Mann and 97% of the world's scientists!"
"We would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling billionaires!"
(Oops. Should have added a spoiler alert.)
"As a scientist who studies cloud formation around dust particles as nuclei, I have no idea why I would want to make the use of petroleum and coal obsolete, but... it's just too good a scam. Alright, count me in!"
So... publications of scientists whose results disprove AGW aren't included in climatology papers? Where did those 3% of naysayers and 66% of agnostics come from, then? And where are these disprovers publishing then?
(I know, here it comes, all together now, "They're not allowed to publish!" Probably secretly murdered by Al Gore's New World Order black heliocopters.
Actually, it's 97% of the papers which expressed some sort of explicit or implicit conclusion re AGW in the abstract. Best to be quite precise in our definitions of what is being asked and answered or we land in easily skeptified territory.
Although in the study as a validation they did ask some thousand or so of the authors directly whether they believed in AGW or not, or were agnostic, and got results remarkably similar to what they gleaned from reading the abstracts.
Follow the money. How many grants are given to the study of..... non catastrophic AGW? If you are a climatologist and want funding, you are pro-AGW, and you don't hide it, even if you are skeptical, as it is the only way to keep your funding.
Of course, if this were funded by KOCH, you'd bet the funding would be an issue.
OK, I"ll bite. How many grants are given to the study of..... non catastrophic AGW? and how many grants are given to the study of catastrophic AGW? And how many to studies debunking AGW?
If you have the answers to these questions, why haven't you provided them in your original post, to make your point? At very least it appears that you are engaging in slinging doubt like a shotgun full of mud, in hopes that at some point you might land on something correct.
How do you put that into a study proposal, anyway? "I plan to correlate ocean temperatures with currents in order to prove that AGW will not be catastrophic" "NO! You must intend to prove that AGW WILL be catastrophic! Denied! Denied! Denied!!"
Nobody said 97% believed in climate catastrophism. The original study was whether publications appeared to support AGW THEORY, oppose it, or are agnostic. Not AGW catastrophism. As the concept of catastrophe is fairly variable from person to person, of course belief in impending catastrophe is going to be a wide spectrum.
Well, that's the fun part. If somebody wants to see the incriminating email, you maneuver them into a situation where they're asking for all your emails. Ever. In printed format rather than software searchable.
Actually, it is. If you have a better way of offering goods at a Supermarket, that doesn't collect information, and offer it up, I'm sure you'll make a small fortune.
Libertarians don't complain, they create a market where others only see problems.
Then why are they always complaining? Like right here? And where are these libertarian markets?
If "they" can sit in cars hidden by the side of the road and watch how you drive and if it doesn't meet "their" standards, pull you over under threat of deadly force and charge you money or even incarcerate you, then yeah, "they" can put a monitoring gadget in your car and charge you extra if you refuse. Jeez.
Every government is owned by money. I think you've been swallowing too much of your own propaganda. Driving is a necessity at this point. there are politicians who think internet access is a right..and if that's a right, then driving definitely is. No car = no job if you live outside the city.
Of course you do.. because leftist ideology is all about retribution. It's end justifies means disguised as a principled stand. Having or not having insurance does not prevent a government from enforcing law. I just want a system that allows people the freedom to do what they need to do in order to live the best life they can. That includes access to the road, insured or not. mandatory insurance has created premium levels many cannot afford. I'm not interested in retribution. I'd just want my car replaced and/or my body patched up. In your example, I'd be rich enough to afford the coverage, and it would be worth it to cover 100k. If I drove a 20 yo honda and had no money, insuring it is a waste anyway. My best bet for avoiding long term disability is avoiding the accident in the first place. Wealth doesn't enter into that.
Well, please tell us your plan for avoiding the accident which occurs when you are sitting at the tail end of a line of cars at a red light and the guy behind you isn't paying attention and rams the converted school bus in which he lives into the back of your 20 year old Honda at 50 mph, and it turns out he has no insurance and no cash and has just totalled the only thing he owns, i.e. the converted school bus. Because if you have a good workable plan for avoiding such incidents, we can indeed do away with mandatory liability insurance, and you will become the Ayn Rand hero you so admire.
You save for now, then they start charging higher premiums if you don't get the service, then it becomes law and the prices go back up, leaving you with the monitoring and the high price. Mandatory insurance of any kind is slavery. Artificial protection against artificial threats (lawsuits).
And in the end you have to either obey the law, pay for breaking the law, or get off your fat ass and attempt to find enough people who agree with you and have the law changed. Slavery I tell you!! A free man never has to worry about any law, nor does he have to pay any attention to what laws are trying to get passed and involve himself in the political process!!
Furthermore, ECU integration isn't that important. If the device has a set of accelerometers and a GPS receiver (which I'm pretty sure they all do), they can know all about how the car's being driven even if it has a carbed engine.
See also "Oh, we can get that all from your cellphone records, which we will subpoena in case of an accident resulting in a lawsuit"
There is a difference between learning biochemistry and/or physiology, etc. and learning the practice of medicine. Unfortunately, that subtle distinction has not found a parallel in the teaching of "computing science".
"When I was your age, we couldn't just download Python. We had to construct our own programming language using a meta circular evaluator. And we were grateful!"
If intelligence were our success factor, then the second most dominant animal on earth would be chimps. Nope, not even before we were around to compete. Intelligence is essentially uncorrelated with success. And that's ignoring plants, microbes, fungi, etc. I suggest it's our ability to communicate which has made us successful. For us that's derived from our intelligence, but other species manage otherwise; bees and ants, for instance. And they do pretty well.
Of course, you could argue that we are the dominant species because we kill all the other dominant species; bison, elephants, whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why this isn't climate change at all! It's *removes mask from monster* Michael Mann and 97% of the world's scientists!"
"We would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling billionaires!"
(Oops. Should have added a spoiler alert.)
"As a scientist who studies cloud formation around dust particles as nuclei, I have no idea why I would want to make the use of petroleum and coal obsolete, but... it's just too good a scam. Alright, count me in!"
So... publications of scientists whose results disprove AGW aren't included in climatology papers? Where did those 3% of naysayers and 66% of agnostics come from, then? And where are these disprovers publishing then? (I know, here it comes, all together now, "They're not allowed to publish!" Probably secretly murdered by Al Gore's New World Order black heliocopters.
Actually, it's 97% of the papers which expressed some sort of explicit or implicit conclusion re AGW in the abstract. Best to be quite precise in our definitions of what is being asked and answered or we land in easily skeptified territory. Although in the study as a validation they did ask some thousand or so of the authors directly whether they believed in AGW or not, or were agnostic, and got results remarkably similar to what they gleaned from reading the abstracts.
Follow the money. How many grants are given to the study of ..... non catastrophic AGW? If you are a climatologist and want funding, you are pro-AGW, and you don't hide it, even if you are skeptical, as it is the only way to keep your funding.
Of course, if this were funded by KOCH, you'd bet the funding would be an issue.
OK, I"ll bite. How many grants are given to the study of ..... non catastrophic AGW? and how many grants are given to the study of catastrophic AGW? And how many to studies debunking AGW?
If you have the answers to these questions, why haven't you provided them in your original post, to make your point? At very least it appears that you are engaging in slinging doubt like a shotgun full of mud, in hopes that at some point you might land on something correct.
How do you put that into a study proposal, anyway? "I plan to correlate ocean temperatures with currents in order to prove that AGW will not be catastrophic" "NO! You must intend to prove that AGW WILL be catastrophic! Denied! Denied! Denied!!"
If you support your arguments, then it's less catastrophic when somebody tries to make fun of you.
Nobody said 97% believed in climate catastrophism. The original study was whether publications appeared to support AGW THEORY, oppose it, or are agnostic. Not AGW catastrophism. As the concept of catastrophe is fairly variable from person to person, of course belief in impending catastrophe is going to be a wide spectrum.
Well, that's the fun part. If somebody wants to see the incriminating email, you maneuver them into a situation where they're asking for all your emails. Ever. In printed format rather than software searchable.
How do you put a nail in somewhere the hammer doesn't fit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
Actually, it is. If you have a better way of offering goods at a Supermarket, that doesn't collect information, and offer it up, I'm sure you'll make a small fortune.
Libertarians don't complain, they create a market where others only see problems.
Then why are they always complaining? Like right here? And where are these libertarian markets?
If "they" can sit in cars hidden by the side of the road and watch how you drive and if it doesn't meet "their" standards, pull you over under threat of deadly force and charge you money or even incarcerate you, then yeah, "they" can put a monitoring gadget in your car and charge you extra if you refuse. Jeez.
Every government is owned by money. I think you've been swallowing too much of your own propaganda. Driving is a necessity at this point. there are politicians who think internet access is a right..and if that's a right, then driving definitely is. No car = no job if you live outside the city.
Of course you do.. because leftist ideology is all about retribution. It's end justifies means disguised as a principled stand. Having or not having insurance does not prevent a government from enforcing law. I just want a system that allows people the freedom to do what they need to do in order to live the best life they can. That includes access to the road, insured or not. mandatory insurance has created premium levels many cannot afford. I'm not interested in retribution. I'd just want my car replaced and/or my body patched up. In your example, I'd be rich enough to afford the coverage, and it would be worth it to cover 100k. If I drove a 20 yo honda and had no money, insuring it is a waste anyway. My best bet for avoiding long term disability is avoiding the accident in the first place. Wealth doesn't enter into that.
Well, please tell us your plan for avoiding the accident which occurs when you are sitting at the tail end of a line of cars at a red light and the guy behind you isn't paying attention and rams the converted school bus in which he lives into the back of your 20 year old Honda at 50 mph, and it turns out he has no insurance and no cash and has just totalled the only thing he owns, i.e. the converted school bus. Because if you have a good workable plan for avoiding such incidents, we can indeed do away with mandatory liability insurance, and you will become the Ayn Rand hero you so admire.
Mandatory insurance of any kind is slavery.
Do you even know what slavery is?
That's when the evil white plantation owners of the south kidnapped Africans and made them buy insurance. Duh.
You save for now, then they start charging higher premiums if you don't get the service, then it becomes law and the prices go back up, leaving you with the monitoring and the high price. Mandatory insurance of any kind is slavery. Artificial protection against artificial threats (lawsuits).
And in the end you have to either obey the law, pay for breaking the law, or get off your fat ass and attempt to find enough people who agree with you and have the law changed. Slavery I tell you!! A free man never has to worry about any law, nor does he have to pay any attention to what laws are trying to get passed and involve himself in the political process!!
Furthermore, ECU integration isn't that important. If the device has a set of accelerometers and a GPS receiver (which I'm pretty sure they all do), they can know all about how the car's being driven even if it has a carbed engine.
See also "Oh, we can get that all from your cellphone records, which we will subpoena in case of an accident resulting in a lawsuit"
http://www.dalkescientific.com...
There is a difference between learning biochemistry and/or physiology, etc. and learning the practice of medicine. Unfortunately, that subtle distinction has not found a parallel in the teaching of "computing science".
"When I was your age, we couldn't just download Python. We had to construct our own programming language using a meta circular evaluator. And we were grateful!"
When your only tool is edlin, then everything looks like a batch file.
The fightin' Missions Accomplisheds.
Yet again, the white man steals from the red man. What's that? Oh, well that's different then. Never mind.
It turns out that the mice ended up with their vaccinations reversed.
If there are no aliens visiting us, then who is behind this big terraforming project to make the earth hotter and more humid?
At this point, it's hard to guarantee that humans will ensure their survival by spreading through the solar system or further.
If intelligence were our success factor, then the second most dominant animal on earth would be chimps. Nope, not even before we were around to compete. Intelligence is essentially uncorrelated with success. And that's ignoring plants, microbes, fungi, etc. I suggest it's our ability to communicate which has made us successful. For us that's derived from our intelligence, but other species manage otherwise; bees and ants, for instance. And they do pretty well. Of course, you could argue that we are the dominant species because we kill all the other dominant species; bison, elephants, whatever.
Any AI smart that knows enough to have a concept of self-preservation will also understand backups and redundancy.