I never said the "we" was singular. You do seem to jump to whatever conclusions suit your preconceptions. That also, by the way, explains why you are on the wrong side of science - which is where this topic began in the first place.
Partly yes. The other part is just human error. The reporter being quoted, had originally interviewed Hanson in 1988 for his book "The oncoming storm", and that's when Hanson made the prediction, along with those caveats. The book includes the prediction accurately by the way.
Nearly a decade later the reporter got a phone call from the guy doing the Salon story - and by his own admission - remembered the timeframe wrong that's where the 20 years comes from), leaving out the "if CO2 doubled" part was entirely on Salon though.
If Salon had bothered to contact Hanson himself, or looked up the original quote in the book - they could have avoided publishing a terrible article that utterly misrepresented what the scientist actually said. But then - Salon has never been all that good at rigorous journalism and even the best publications at that tend to be terrible at reporting science news. Salon is good at political opinion writing - and shouldn't be treated as anything more than the opinion pages of a typical newspaper. Actual news reporting is not something they are any good at.
Nothing wrong with political opinion writing, it is an important part of journalism - but it isn't news and it definitely isn't rigorous enough to use as a source on science.
He's making the same logic error as those who claim Y2K was a hoax. They say "look everybody panicked and spent all that money to prevent a disaster and then almost nothing happened". But they ignore the fact that the only REASON almost nothing happened is BECAUSE we spent all that money and effort to prevent it.
We had a warning, we had time to implement solutions, we did- and we averted a problem.
The correct response is to be joyful at our success, not to claim that the success proves the problem wasn't real. The few things we couldn't avoid proves it was (even if you weren't there to see the other potential issues yourself). At least one person found herself unable to vote in the 1999 election because computers thought she was 2 years old, she was actually 102 - and had to go to court to get a special clearance to be able to vote. One nuclear plant shut down on new years day 2000 due to a Y2K error that made a monitoring computer think it hadn't had a check response from the safety monitors for over a hundred years and enter an automated safety-shutdown cycle.
Small problems over-all, reasonably easy to manage and work around - but that's because the BIG problems were all fixed in several years of seriously intense and hard work by everybody from sysadmins and helldesk jockies to electronic engineers and chip designers.
You cannot declare a prediction failed when serious action was taken to mitigate the conditions of the prediction - the entire point of the prediction was to encourage those actions and ipso facto their success actually VALIDATES the prediction.
> the trolls who create strife just for fun, the paid shills, the politically motivated right wing shitposters, and the honest-to-goodness morons who are too stupid to face reality.
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have mastered the dubious talent to be all those things at the same time.
>What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
We call you science deniers, or sometimes we get specific and mention the particular science your're denying. Like evolution-denier or climate-change-denier.
That article is bullshit - and the very reporter being quoted has said so. The actual prediction was about what would happen if 1) CO2 levels doubled 2) In 40 years (not 20 as reported in Salon)
It has been nowhere close to 40 years yet, and CO2 levels have not doubled.
Hansen's prediction may actually come true - but his prediction was contingent on two conditions - neither of which has yet occurred.
You're going to wait a while, he will have to self-publish it you see. His publisher got cold feet after the lackadaisical sales of his last books: 1001 cures for wanker's cramp.
Dude... you apparently missed the joke. Trump has not reduced corruption in washington - by being the most corrupt president in...ever he has HUGELY increased it, and he filled his cabinet with the biggest bunch of corrupt elites in decades. The only Goldman/Sachs employees he HASN'T put in his cabinet are Goldman and Sachs ! Weren't you Trumpets all angry that Hillary got paid to talk to Goldman/Sachs ? Where is that anger now that Trump has actually MADE Goldman Sachs INTO the executive branch of the government ?
So you're just going to pretend that anarcho-communism and libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism and council communism (actually I'll stop here but there are about 200 more in the list) don't exist ?
More importantly - you missed the point. It's the dictatorship that's the problem - it doesn't MATTER what economic system it comes with. All dictatorships are equally evil. And to suggest that fascism and communism have anything whatsoever in common is merely to prove that, sadly like the vast majority of people, you have absolutely no idea what fascism means. Fascism is a nationalistic, militaristic form of CAPITALISM. Another name for it (in fact the name Musolini used) is corporatism - it's a melding of state and corporate power to achieve absolute control over the population. It is therefore absolutely and entirely incompatible with any kind of socialist, leftist or communist ideals since those all seek to dismantle corporate power while fascism seeks to strengthen it.
I refrain from moralistically judging people's sex lives (even if they brag about them) and I don't care if you've fucked 3 people or 3 million.
But when you're bragging about over a thousand partners AND bragging that you refuse to use protection... I would be standing pretty far away from you because I don't even want to imagine the many varieties of crotch-rot you must have by now.
That's beyond irresponsible - that's straight up self-destruction with a recruitment sideline.
This guy is treating STI's like pokemon: gotta catch'em all
Sexual topics can be perfectly acceptable and harmless fun. But the workplace is not a context where it can ever be any of those things.
A workplace should be a place of professionalism. Certain topics have no place there - not least because the people around you are not your friends - they are your colleagues.
I remember circa 2013 the republican congress was called the "least productive" congress in history. Ted Cruz declared that this was a good thing and said: "A congress should be judged more by how many laws it repeals than by how many laws it passes".
Of course, it turns out that congress was STILL the least productive by this measure as well. In fact, the only thing that congress ever actually 'achieved' was to shut down the government (and they ultimately had to relent and sign a budget without getting the demands they shut the government down over).
Don't confuse communism with dictatorship - while most communist states have been dictatorships this is not limited to communism - and dictatorship is evil all by itself. Hitler and Musolini was vehemently anti-communist (Fascism hates Communism) Franco of Spain started out as a Fascist, became a Communist after world war 2 (when fascism lost a lot of it's appeal), and became a capitalist in the 1970s Pinochet was perhaps the most capitalist leader in world history - and one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. I mean Milton Friendman and F.A. Hayek basically wrote his economic policy.
Do you think the people Pinochet killed spent their last moments thinking "Thank goodness the brutal dictator killing me is a libertarian-style capitalist and not an evil communist. It would suck so much more to be murdered by Stalin" ? Because I doubt that...
Your example also happened at a time when the internet relied entirely on sitting on top of a wire infrastructure that already existed and was maintained by companies not involved in the supply of internet services. Those ISPs were sitting on the phone lines - and changing ISPs was as easy as terminating your account and getting another one. It was fairly easy to switch ISPs and fairly cheap and easy to establish one - because the infrastructure costs were limited to a few routers and servers.
That era doesn't exist anymore - broadband technology came with the downside of requiring expensive new infrastructure and the ISPs converged into being the same companies that build the infrastructure. The old ISP competitive market was lost in the process.
Your prediction then that the same would happen is not supported by the evidence you're providing since the two situations are markedly different. It's a basic principle of the scientific method that if you change the parameters of the experiment you cannot assume the results will not also change.
ICE automobiles reached their lowest possible price point ages ago - digital tech play by different rules. We're nowhere near the lowest possible price point on either EVs or self-driving tech yet.
Initially, perhaps, but ultimately technology costs have a habit of dropping like a stone - and the whole business model is built around low-cost, that won't last long. And it won't be long before comodified versions of the technology are available - and you start seeing smaller-scale operations springing up like mushrooms.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said the "we" was singular. You do seem to jump to whatever conclusions suit your preconceptions.
That also, by the way, explains why you are on the wrong side of science - which is where this topic began in the first place.
That "you" was singular. I was talking to you, personally.
Partly yes. The other part is just human error. The reporter being quoted, had originally interviewed Hanson in 1988 for his book "The oncoming storm", and that's when Hanson made the prediction, along with those caveats. The book includes the prediction accurately by the way.
Nearly a decade later the reporter got a phone call from the guy doing the Salon story - and by his own admission - remembered the timeframe wrong that's where the 20 years comes from), leaving out the "if CO2 doubled" part was entirely on Salon though.
If Salon had bothered to contact Hanson himself, or looked up the original quote in the book - they could have avoided publishing a terrible article that utterly misrepresented what the scientist actually said. But then - Salon has never been all that good at rigorous journalism and even the best publications at that tend to be terrible at reporting science news. Salon is good at political opinion writing - and shouldn't be treated as anything more than the opinion pages of a typical newspaper. Actual news reporting is not something they are any good at.
Nothing wrong with political opinion writing, it is an important part of journalism - but it isn't news and it definitely isn't rigorous enough to use as a source on science.
Well they do say prevention is better than cure.
Because, of course, ABC is a peer reviewed scientific institution well known for it's high quality research in various academic disciplines.
Oh wait...
He's making the same logic error as those who claim Y2K was a hoax.
They say "look everybody panicked and spent all that money to prevent a disaster and then almost nothing happened".
But they ignore the fact that the only REASON almost nothing happened is BECAUSE we spent all that money and effort to prevent it.
We had a warning, we had time to implement solutions, we did- and we averted a problem.
The correct response is to be joyful at our success, not to claim that the success proves the problem wasn't real. The few things we couldn't avoid proves it was (even if you weren't there to see the other potential issues yourself). At least one person found herself unable to vote in the 1999 election because computers thought she was 2 years old, she was actually 102 - and had to go to court to get a special clearance to be able to vote. One nuclear plant shut down on new years day 2000 due to a Y2K error that made a monitoring computer think it hadn't had a check response from the safety monitors for over a hundred years and enter an automated safety-shutdown cycle.
Small problems over-all, reasonably easy to manage and work around - but that's because the BIG problems were all fixed in several years of seriously intense and hard work by everybody from sysadmins and helldesk jockies to electronic engineers and chip designers.
You cannot declare a prediction failed when serious action was taken to mitigate the conditions of the prediction - the entire point of the prediction was to encourage those actions and ipso facto their success actually VALIDATES the prediction.
> the trolls who create strife just for fun, the paid shills, the politically motivated right wing shitposters, and the honest-to-goodness morons who are too stupid to face reality.
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have mastered the dubious talent to be all those things at the same time.
>What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
We call you science deniers, or sometimes we get specific and mention the particular science your're denying. Like evolution-denier or climate-change-denier.
That article is bullshit - and the very reporter being quoted has said so.
The actual prediction was about what would happen if
1) CO2 levels doubled
2) In 40 years (not 20 as reported in Salon)
It has been nowhere close to 40 years yet, and CO2 levels have not doubled.
Hansen's prediction may actually come true - but his prediction was contingent on two conditions - neither of which has yet occurred.
You're going to wait a while, he will have to self-publish it you see. His publisher got cold feet after the lackadaisical sales of his last books: 1001 cures for wanker's cramp.
Dude... you apparently missed the joke. Trump has not reduced corruption in washington - by being the most corrupt president in ...ever he has HUGELY increased it, and he filled his cabinet with the biggest bunch of corrupt elites in decades. The only Goldman/Sachs employees he HASN'T put in his cabinet are Goldman and Sachs ! Weren't you Trumpets all angry that Hillary got paid to talk to Goldman/Sachs ? Where is that anger now that Trump has actually MADE Goldman Sachs INTO the executive branch of the government ?
So you're just going to pretend that anarcho-communism and libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism and council communism (actually I'll stop here but there are about 200 more in the list) don't exist ?
More importantly - you missed the point. It's the dictatorship that's the problem - it doesn't MATTER what economic system it comes with. All dictatorships are equally evil.
And to suggest that fascism and communism have anything whatsoever in common is merely to prove that, sadly like the vast majority of people, you have absolutely no idea what fascism means.
Fascism is a nationalistic, militaristic form of CAPITALISM. Another name for it (in fact the name Musolini used) is corporatism - it's a melding of state and corporate power to achieve absolute control over the population.
It is therefore absolutely and entirely incompatible with any kind of socialist, leftist or communist ideals since those all seek to dismantle corporate power while fascism seeks to strengthen it.
I refrain from moralistically judging people's sex lives (even if they brag about them) and I don't care if you've fucked 3 people or 3 million.
But when you're bragging about over a thousand partners AND bragging that you refuse to use protection... I would be standing pretty far away from you because I don't even want to imagine the many varieties of crotch-rot you must have by now.
That's beyond irresponsible - that's straight up self-destruction with a recruitment sideline.
This guy is treating STI's like pokemon: gotta catch'em all
Sexual topics can be perfectly acceptable and harmless fun. But the workplace is not a context where it can ever be any of those things.
A workplace should be a place of professionalism. Certain topics have no place there - not least because the people around you are not your friends - they are your colleagues.
>The last few winters, only a couple of great tits showed up.
Are you sure you're watching BIRDS ? Because it sounds more like you're watching porn.
Well Trump himself still thinks he's doing a re-enactment of the Andrew Jackson presidency, trail of tears and all.
I remember circa 2013 the republican congress was called the "least productive" congress in history. Ted Cruz declared that this was a good thing and said: "A congress should be judged more by how many laws it repeals than by how many laws it passes".
Of course, it turns out that congress was STILL the least productive by this measure as well. In fact, the only thing that congress ever actually 'achieved' was to shut down the government (and they ultimately had to relent and sign a budget without getting the demands they shut the government down over).
Don't confuse communism with dictatorship - while most communist states have been dictatorships this is not limited to communism - and dictatorship is evil all by itself.
Hitler and Musolini was vehemently anti-communist (Fascism hates Communism)
Franco of Spain started out as a Fascist, became a Communist after world war 2 (when fascism lost a lot of it's appeal), and became a capitalist in the 1970s
Pinochet was perhaps the most capitalist leader in world history - and one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. I mean Milton Friendman and F.A. Hayek basically wrote his economic policy.
Do you think the people Pinochet killed spent their last moments thinking "Thank goodness the brutal dictator killing me is a libertarian-style capitalist and not an evil communist. It would suck so much more to be murdered by Stalin" ?
Because I doubt that...
Oh Trump drained the swamp alright. Then he gave all the snakes and alligators cabinet posts.
Your example also happened at a time when the internet relied entirely on sitting on top of a wire infrastructure that already existed and was maintained by companies not involved in the supply of internet services. Those ISPs were sitting on the phone lines - and changing ISPs was as easy as terminating your account and getting another one. It was fairly easy to switch ISPs and fairly cheap and easy to establish one - because the infrastructure costs were limited to a few routers and servers.
That era doesn't exist anymore - broadband technology came with the downside of requiring expensive new infrastructure and the ISPs converged into being the same companies that build the infrastructure.
The old ISP competitive market was lost in the process.
Your prediction then that the same would happen is not supported by the evidence you're providing since the two situations are markedly different. It's a basic principle of the scientific method that if you change the parameters of the experiment you cannot assume the results will not also change.
Yes. It was.
The whole net neutrality debate began with ISPs trying to charge netflix a surcharge not to throttle them.
Not this time, this tech. It's been playing by different rules for over 70 years now - I think the SAFE bet is that it will keep doing so.
I'm pretty sure that's what they said about the Horse and Buggy.
ICE automobiles reached their lowest possible price point ages ago - digital tech play by different rules. We're nowhere near the lowest possible price point on either EVs or self-driving tech yet.
Initially, perhaps, but ultimately technology costs have a habit of dropping like a stone - and the whole business model is built around low-cost, that won't last long. And it won't be long before comodified versions of the technology are available - and you start seeing smaller-scale operations springing up like mushrooms.