"Doubt is the enemy of Faith, it is NOT the enemy of science."
You have to be a pretty dim individual to ask for scientific proof of doubt. The propagandist is you an every other "cultist AGW" crackpot out where without a single accurate "prediction". There has always been a doomsday crowd running around saying the sky is falling, the earth is cooling, the earth is warming, the earth is climate changing! Every little thing that goes bad is blamed on AGW now as though quakes, extinctions, hurricanes, tornado's and other disasters have not be happening all along. We have a tiny slice of "semi-accurately" recorded history... it's pretty easy to break records and take things out of context.
They don't care. Just like he said... no one from the left has doubted what is generally accepted. You are not allowed to doubt anything that has been generally accepted. I wonder if they remember reading in history class that it was generally accepted that the earth was flat once upon a time.
This is what makes them a flipping cult. Calling out anyone not accepting the "generally accepted" conclusion has being ignorant or wrong. These folks are the exact same assholes that keep holding science back. Many like them held back many of the great scientific minds throughout the ages, and they don't even care, in fact they derive a sense of glee at preventing truth because they think they already have all the truth they need to live.
The people that treat the "deniers" poorly are nothing but hand fed armchair pseudo scientists, treating evidence like it is the same as proof. They take evidence like it is gospel on it's face and if someone says otherwise... then they are just a bunch of morons.
This is why there is a fundamental breakdown here.
I go label as a troll, my accusations are not a troll. They are grounded in pure science. How can that be the case? Because the problem with how the general lay person like you perceives the words proof and evidence.
Yes, the demonstration provides evidence that "carbon" will hold heat... do you know what else does? A lot of other things like water vapor... in fact we call it steams as it transitions from a liquid to a gas state. Here is the problem... the experiment proves nothing. It's like saying a person settling a case instead of fighting it out in court is automatically guilty. That is not true, and people know why. Proving that CO2 will hold heat is not really at issue, it is the exclusive driving "faith" in this as a sole conclusion. These systems are incredibly complex but folks keep trying to reduce everything down to a single cause. Well, if you knew anything about medicine you would know that this is never the cause. There is never a single driving cause to an issue. Single events may lead to singular conclusions on a microscopic scale, but often time are never lead to final conclusions on a macroscopic scale.
I am not a denier either. I don't deny that warming is occurring, but I definitely reserve my rights to treat all evidence as suspect with these cultists coming out of the wood work with 100% of their predictions failing.
I want proof, not just evidence. I am sure you understand the fundamental difference right?
"I responded to you, but I admit I think you are ignorant and will not read the things I linked to."
Of course you think I am ignorant, you are being dragged into the realm of pseudo science, and though I would say "thank you" for providing links to material... I asked for "proof" not "evidence". I have seen the evidence... and I agree that it is indeed "evidence" but it is not "proof"... the precious threshold that needs to be met before we start getting married to a bunch of solutions that require radical alterations to how we live. Especially when those radical alterations are being driven by a group of people I know with 100% certainty are going to abuse the power they gain from holding those reigns. Humans have a problem with corruption, it's not a matter of it... it's a matter of when. Therefore all solutions must have an automatic out built into it, and right now... no one is thinking about what happens if they are wrong and we start causing a bunch of human suffering over a bad scientific guess. We have done this many times already when it comes to medicine. I was called the assault on butter and fat a bullshit crusade 2 decades ago. And do you know what helped drive me to that conclusion? A simple chicken egg... if fat was so bad... why does a chicken develop without having a heart attack? Why do the body store energy in fat? Well, the medical industry is starting to back off of that load of BS finally, but the entire time I hate to put up with folks just like you calling me an unintelligent quack that is too ignorant to know what I was talking about. Do you know what else they had back then? They have evidence that said high cholesterol and fat would give you a heart attack then too... but as usual, there is a lot more things going on then just one simple component, proving folks just like you... wrong. Because you found a little evidence and decided that was all you needed to mount a holy crusade to foolishly change civilization. There are people literally dead because of that. Literally Dead, not to mention all the people that have suffered because they believed that trash and altered their diets in unhealthy ways.
"None of the intelligent ones doubt that CO2 warms the atmosphere to some degree. Or if there is an intelligent person who doubts it, I would like to meet them."
And that is exactly why you are a cultist. Doubt is the enemy of Faith, it is NOT the enemy of science. You will never run into anyone intelligent by the standards you have set. You will only run into unintelligent people. By the way... avoid the mirror, you will not find any intelligent folks there either.
Stop treating people that don't believe in the same things you do as being ignorant or stupid. They just just do not come to the same conclusions that you do when looking at the evidence. And since you make it clear that the only intelligent people on the subject are the cultists then you leave little room for discussion on the subject. You are exactly the kind of person this is the problem in this discussion, moron to a fault and anyone unwilling to subscribe to your version of idiocy cannot be intelligent.
I don't view scientists that believe in AGW as stupid, but I do view the people agreeing to Political wealth redistribution schemes as a solution to it as stupid. But folks like you... I just consider you to be nothing more than a member of another moronic cult that can't separate fact from faith.
"We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm things up."
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case. So far it looks to be the case that higher CO2 amounts are contributing to warming things up but that is because we have correlation. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because CO2 its will trap heat does not mean that it traps enough to be of concern.
"How much warming will result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere?"
If they knew that then model predictions would be more accurate and since they cannot determine how much, it adds to skepticism that CO2 is really trapping heat at all.
"Of course, we have estimates for that last question, but the error bars are huge."
And this is why I call much of it a cult... the desire to ramrod legislation and ridicule anyone not buying the mantra. Lets gets some solid provable data out here.
Right now GW is entirely a Hoax, not because of it happening or not, but because the solutions being recommended do not actually solve the problem and are nothing more than money changing and wealth redistribution gimmicks which according to history will likely only lock the solutions down to the wealthy elite as becoming the proprietors and gatekeepers of solutions for global warming creating an even larger wealth gap, despite the believe it would reduce it.
"The destruction of the Antarctic ice sheet may not lead to such a catastrophic rise in the level of the oceans, as previously thought."
Well this won't sound good to the global warming cultists... especially the ones that wanted to put deniers in jail. And they wonder why people scoff at them?
No you are, and just like I said before hand. The Cult of Global Warming no longer has any sanity left.
"The landscape is changing, and it stands to reason that something is causing these changes."
yes that reason is alwasy 100% GW right and nothing else.
" Thanks to ground penetrating radar, we know what."
Utter BS... you only know if it is there or not... not necessarily that you know what caused it.
"So, I guess I'll be waiting for your publication."
No, the responsibility for proving it existed before hand is on then. This is why you are cultist. You require me to publish proof of the opposite but have no trouble believing their unproven accusations without a problem.
All I am asking for is proof that it existed before hand but that is tantamount to "Flaimbait" as mentioned here. You lack sanity!
"representing the loss of 14 billion tons of ice."
So they KNOW for a fact that ice has always been there? Or are we just assuming it was there because we did not find this until now? There are a lot of assumptions going on here... and because of the "Cult of Global Warming" it is now impossible have have responsible discussion.
Was the ice there before? Why is that information not being provided? Oh wait... I get it... just like people of faith are required to accept the existence of their Gods, the GW Cult expects all the deniers to take what they think on faith too!
Science these days is starting to require more faith than many religions.
Most liberals and conservatives are not assholes. The new problem is that the left and right are being mislabeled as liberal/conservative. All of these terms have been turned on their heads.
The origin of the word Liberal is from Liberty... and today's liberals are anti-liberty to the core. Suppression of free speech, public vilification to ruin people, anti-gun rights, pro-heavy regulation... none of which sounds like liberty.
The origin of the word Conservative is "generally" to preserve what is currently already present and to not change that. Desire to change government institutions, shrink government, repeal laws, and facilitate a police states... none of which sounds like conservatism.
That said... Liberals and Conservatives can get along... if you find out that you cannot get along... then it is more likely that you belong to either the extreme right or extreme left... and there is low chance that being extreme is healthy for either you or your enemies!
While it is true that the Constitution is generally shat upon by both sides with zero hesitation, the "General Welfare" clause does actually pass muster to allow Government to regulate telecom to a "certain degree". What that "certain degree" is is the real argument.
So yes, Federal Regulations on Communications is most definitely constitutional the question is just how much of it would be. Example, they can definitely regulate the amount of power your equipment can produce so you cannot use it as a weapon against others and disrupt their lives, but they cannot regulate what you say, because of the 1st. Yes that means public decency laws are often not constitutional, but like I said... people really don't give a shit about the Constitution and there is a good chance you don't either so give it a rest.
There are more than enough Democrats on the take with ISP's as well. Additionally, there have been more than enough Democrats in power over time to have solved this problem as well. They were also bitched at for not taking Ajit to task over the cyberattack BS.
This is the same old long game of do nothing but blame the other side for things being bad.
The problems could have been fixed a long time ago. The only game left in town is to first create a problem then campaign against them... true to form the Americans buy the BS.
We have nearly had almost a Century of Telecom regulations and guess what... the monopolies are still here and there is an endless supply of ignorant apologist's to defend these morons.
And don't forget, NN still has loopholes called Zerorating, and I still saw Netflix and several services throttled anyways while NN was in effect so it was worth trash to begin with.
Democrats care as much as the Republicans... they care just enough to get your vote and then they are done with you!
This is an Authoritarian Indoctrination scheme. Teach the kids they don't have freedom, that is how you get them dependent on authority to tell them what they need to do. Creates great little democrats and republicans. You are not allowed to decide how you learn, you must do it our way or else.
Let them have their devices, if they can pass while playing Farmville and texting with their friends then good for them. The only thing school should be doing is teaching them is knowledge, not what to believe or how to behave. If a child will not behave, kick them out of school and make it their parents problem. The entire system has been setup to treat everyone like little assembly line factory workers and it stinks like a rotting pile of disease riddle flesh.
Once the kids start getting kicked out and parents have to start dealing with them... the problem will get fixed in much better ways.
Yes, they can resolve them, the problem is that is not profitable to do that.
To those complaining about the VOIP and Other Telephony systems. The call was made, means it can be traced. The solution is simple, whether you call it the "honor system" or not the company generating the calls can easily be discovered because its their system and they control the tech running across their systems. They can trace the parts that the telephone company cannot. It works just like if a neighbor borrowed your car to rob a bank. The police will pay you a visit and find out who you loaned your car to. There is a chain of responsibility and the jackass at the end of it is the culprit, people are just too lazy to do the work until someone important gets threatened then they start finding people damn fast.
The problem is the same problem it has always been, people not understanding anything.
"I do think that regulations are appropriate and somewhat effective"
I share you views on the detriment of IP protections on this, but I think it is going to be clear that your definition of what is appropriate or effective are likely going to be radically different from mine.
"One example of a simple yet effective change in Intellectual Property law that helps innovation is disallowing certain things from being patentable."
A good idea and one that I would agree with on its face but it won't work all of the way. All Monsanto has to do is buy up everything, it has been done before and will be done again. The only thing the regulation does is move the goal post. We need regulations that stop treating businesses has Holy Entities that require loads of money to challenge. Though I will say, your proposed solution is a far sight better to have than not have that said.
Not only that, but once a business has this shit locked down they are just going to hide behind the government skirts when people lame blame at their feet by just saying... we followed all regulations.
Businesses like Monsanto have little reason to do better, unless that doing better means they make more money or gain more power/monopoly over something. Improving the agriculture, science, or society is absolutely NOT a goal.
No, the largest issue with GM crops is the Government Regulatory enforcement of who can own the modification making something that can naturally grow automatic property of someone or a business.
I have less problem with GMO than I have with the regulatory landscape letting companies like Monsanto gut our agricultural industry with lawsuits to force farmers to become their personal farmers when their "government granted ownership" of the DNA in those seeds spread into the wild which is exactly what nature likes to fucking do and something Monsanto counted upon and bribed your "ignorant" regulators to allow.
And as usual most people here are glossing over that huge problem because as usual, they have their own little "dunning-Kruger" problems. I can accept that I have it as well, but I also know that you are mostly correct in your statements despite that, however that you still advocate to increase the parts that caused the problem under the guise of decreasing the problem in a huge glaring flag.
Instead of regulating it because of "corporate greed" it needs to be deregulated, and instead open the businesses to liability when their products can be implicated in hurting folks or the environment. That will provide far more fucking regulatory control than easy to buy politicians that you "religiously believe" will look after these things responsibly. They can be bought off just as easily as you can be fooled, and neither are particularly high hills to climb! Most of the problems we have today are from people like you that think we can solve the problem with an ignorant politician whose only goal is to game the damned system. There is a word for this... it's called reaping what you sow!
When someone says "they are the professionals" or "I am the professional" ignore them. They have nothing intelligent to say. Everyone is a human and they have the same problem... wanting to be right regardless of the outcome of the argument to get there.
First is the gate-keeping... the idea that if you are not credentialed in some way to speak on the subject then your input is not valid. Next comes the Sheeplism... if you say something that is not "group-think" approved then you must be marginalized or discredited. Then comes the Closed-Loop problem. The same people teaching the subject only pass or certify the people that believe in the subject in the "proscribed" way leading to in-the-box thinking where thought conformity is encouraged more than the goal of knowledge transfer or individual creative thought. It leads to mono-idealism where at best only one or two camps of anything can exist because there is no support for a 3rd since you are not allow to have your own opinions and will be over-powered by the already present non-thinking larger group of idiots.
And just like this article... Being opposed to scientific consensus makes you an idiot. Well, that in and of instead only reveals the moron writing this article is the biggest fucking moron. There has been more than enough scientific consensus that were wrong. In fact many "famous" scientists have spoken at length about problems like this and having to face it down in their professional careers. The endless cacophony of people seriously affected by the illusions of their own superiority calling out people that are actually more correct than them as morons.
"Science isn't "right" or "wrong". It's simply a model of how things work based on analysis of available data."
There is still a context for it being right or wrong. Literally the entire reason they conduct tests... to you know... find out if the hypothesis cannot be dis-proven to become a theory. If a Hypothesis or theory can be proven, then it likely will become a Law or Fact which then makes it... right (correct) instead of wrong (incorrect). Additionally, you can still be right or wrong without having possession of any information or model for analysis... you just need info and models to help convince others you are right. The sky is blue right? How do I go about convincing you of that?
" Either the model accurately reflects observation or it does not." Comment is too obtuse or subjective to work with, likely on purpose. What is accurate or not is in the eye of the beholder and often up to interpretation based on what one believes evidence to represent. A broken window with a ball nearby accurately reflects an observation that the ball broke the window... and yet can still be totally wrong.
"Either it helps predict or it does not." Broken window and ball again here... it can help predict a false positive.
"If you're on a search for "right" and "wrong", then maybe you're the one who's confusing science with religion."
No, that is where I am unique as a person... I keep science and religion properly separated, hence my complaint that many of you are failing to do that. I treat the science as it should be. I do not worship it, I do not treat it as infallible, I do not allow majority opinions to justify them, I do not allow it to convince me religion is false and I do not allow religion to convince me that science is false. If God exists, science is one of the ways we can learn how God did something. It is not against the existence of a God or Gods, it is a sign of a small mind to think so as well. It is also the sign of a small mind when religious folks trash the sciences considering that their God(s) gave them a brain. God's don't need being with brains to be worshiped. A God can compel your obedience.
lol, yea... but only for a little while. Until I open up a news site and read something like this again.
It just amazes me that people stop acting like humans and their corrupting influences stops existing once you call them "Scientist's" or "Government Personnel" or by "Political Label" and then start acting like they are infallible or too good to be touched. Sounds more like the Catholic Church to me... I guess they are all jealous that the Pope beat them to the claim of being infallible and excommunicating those not parroting the mantra's because only the "Clergy" can understand while the lay folk can't.
"I feel like you're talking about science journalism, here, rather than actual science."
No, talking about the real science. Sure journalism is also to blame but that is a red herring or straw-man argument. Just stick to the science parts keep the journalism out of it. You are pulling it in because you already know you are wrong and hate being called out on it.
"I'll grant that scientists sometimes engage in that as a marketing tool, but I really don't feel like SCIENCE came to me and said "Butter is bad", any more than I feel like DEMOCRACY came to me and said "Guns are good" or "Cardi B is an excellent singer"."
Completely unrelated arguments. Doctors all over whom are supposed to be trained to properly disseminate the science to their patients said butter was bad because science said that. Is this just another attempt to lay the blame on the journalists? Are we to treat the doctors, "Scientists of the Body" in this case like courts treat the police? Not expected to know or understand the information/laws they enforce/act upon? Are you saying you knowingly put your life into the hands of a person that ignores the science and follows the journalism?
"Even if SCIENCE did make statements like that, I currently live in a country where a lot of people make arguments about how the world is flat, the earth was created in less than 13.5 billion years (plus or minus), and that vaccinations cause autism and chemtrails and fluoride are mind-control devices. I'm not sure what you expect science to do, here."
And that is why I called it a Church, your arguments are just as unreasonable as theirs. You are not even intelligent enough to understand you look and sound like those you hate, just on the opposite side.
Science has made all sorts of contradictory statements, and people like you treat a lot of it as gospel. I am trying to get you stop making it a Church and just leave it as it should be... science.
If God exists with the power they claim then Science cannot touch that. Put yourself in the shoes of a developer that creates a virtual world. Constructs in that world cannot know they are virtual for it is real to them as you have defined it. Unless you give them the capacity to see outside of that reality they are like you. They see a 13.5 billion year old existence... even if it is only just 3 seconds in the frame of time of a dimension above it. You cannot see past 3 dimensions because that is where you exist... how do you describe a 3rd dimension to a 2 dimensional being? They might be able to conceptualize it, but can they fully understand?
I am not expecting Science to do anything, what I am expecting is for folks like you to stop making it into a church and worshiping it like it has a God... one where YOU just like those that ridiculed Copernicus for thinking the Sun was at the Center of the universe instead of Earth. The problem is that Copernicus was not right either, he just was not as wrong as the others. But because of people like you, the ones in the major, become the oppressors because they did not parrot your views.
This is the current Science, sure it has always had elements of this problem, scientists are humans, but even the scientists themselves ridicule each other for their ignorance and stupidity.
A couple of my favorite quotes on this subject.
Einstein ~ "Only Two Things Are Infinite, the Universe and Human Stupidity, and I Do Not Know About the Former."
You are one of the humans he was talking about, along with those the modded my comments down.
Freeman Dyson ~ "Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to mo
Yea, it's a real shame that science progresses one funeral at a time [Max Planck]. First coffee was bad, then its good, eggs were bad then they were good, milk was bad then good and now bad again depending on who you ask, fat is bad and here recently it is becoming good again. The only minds that are made up about this are the unmade minds.
Science definitely should have the ear of the people, but most of the time the people never check out who is signing the checks. Most of the time, most of the science is mostly wrong. Of course the benefit of decent science is that it will correct for this and change how it researches and its claims when new evidence is presented or something new is learned that might be helpful to learn the truth. But today, its not that anymore, it's all confirmation bias. Evidence that does not support the pursuit is omitted or assailed when presented by the opposition. The opposition... constantly treating people that are looking for the truth as well as though they are opposition. How quaint!
Even the term "climate deniers" is nothing more than a baseless accusation against anyone that does not "believe" or parrot the proscribed mantras.
I don't not believe in climate change, I just do not see enough evidence that can prove it, and definitely not enough to let a bunch of corrupt politicians come up with their version of a solution to it. But do you know what? I want the research to continue, until they get enough to prove it one way or the other. Many people here are mistaken that "a scientific consensus" is the only requirement or even a good requirement... well it's not. How many times has the "scientific consensus" been wrong? Far too many to ever use that logic while expecting to be taken seriously. Even climate change has its own history of flip flopping, heck it even got downplayed during the GW phase only to be just now refereed to as "Climate Change".
Is it warming? I don't have a reason to doubt that claim, but I have more than enough reasons to doubt that the scientific consensus knows why or how to fix it, and I definitely have good cause to doubt that the same people that can't even resolve a government shutdown will have a viable solution. Even Macron can't get the yellow vest under control.
I definitely want to get renewable working, but not just because of GW. And like this article, some people are missing sleep, but what are we going to do about it? run around and knock people the fuck out so they do get a bit of shuteye?
I know... how about a "sleep tax"! That will make them jump for joy!
heck I even bet that the reason they are saying that it is already too late to stop it now no matter what we do is because they need a fall back if they get their way and get all sorts of climate change legislation done and we still bake like little potatoes. But hey... lets not let a good crisis go to waste eh?
"a growing number of scientists"..."are bringing evangelical zeal to the message"
I think the new church of science has become well established. Research that cannot be duplicated, constant misrepresentation of facts or evidence, outright deception and money pandering.
I am a big fan of science, but it has become more of a religion of late than the search for truth about our world.
The first problem is tribalism. It's okay when their side illegally or unconstitutionally does something... just not okay when those not on their side do the same.
The second problem is... Congress cannot constitutionally grant any agency power to write regulations... they may only regulate with the laws congress wrote.
Agencies at best can only ask/recommend for Congress to make regulations for them to enforce.
Article 1 section 1 "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Many people have ignorantly and maliciously caused people to think that section 8 sub-section 18 allows congress to let agencies like the FCC to actually create regulation they can then enforce without Congress having to pass them and signed by the President.
It is pretty much the same as if the Police were allowed to create laws to enforce whenever they like. Just imagine how much value there would be in corporations to buy police departments... like they currently like to "buy" agencies like the FCC?
Slashdot Mirror
Let me write it again.
"Doubt is the enemy of Faith, it is NOT the enemy of science."
You have to be a pretty dim individual to ask for scientific proof of doubt. The propagandist is you an every other "cultist AGW" crackpot out where without a single accurate "prediction". There has always been a doomsday crowd running around saying the sky is falling, the earth is cooling, the earth is warming, the earth is climate changing! Every little thing that goes bad is blamed on AGW now as though quakes, extinctions, hurricanes, tornado's and other disasters have not be happening all along. We have a tiny slice of "semi-accurately" recorded history... it's pretty easy to break records and take things out of context.
They don't care. Just like he said... no one from the left has doubted what is generally accepted. You are not allowed to doubt anything that has been generally accepted. I wonder if they remember reading in history class that it was generally accepted that the earth was flat once upon a time.
This is what makes them a flipping cult. Calling out anyone not accepting the "generally accepted" conclusion has being ignorant or wrong. These folks are the exact same assholes that keep holding science back. Many like them held back many of the great scientific minds throughout the ages, and they don't even care, in fact they derive a sense of glee at preventing truth because they think they already have all the truth they need to live.
The people that treat the "deniers" poorly are nothing but hand fed armchair pseudo scientists, treating evidence like it is the same as proof. They take evidence like it is gospel on it's face and if someone says otherwise... then they are just a bunch of morons.
This is why there is a fundamental breakdown here.
I go label as a troll, my accusations are not a troll. They are grounded in pure science. How can that be the case? Because the problem with how the general lay person like you perceives the words proof and evidence.
Yes, the demonstration provides evidence that "carbon" will hold heat... do you know what else does? A lot of other things like water vapor... in fact we call it steams as it transitions from a liquid to a gas state. Here is the problem... the experiment proves nothing. It's like saying a person settling a case instead of fighting it out in court is automatically guilty. That is not true, and people know why. Proving that CO2 will hold heat is not really at issue, it is the exclusive driving "faith" in this as a sole conclusion. These systems are incredibly complex but folks keep trying to reduce everything down to a single cause. Well, if you knew anything about medicine you would know that this is never the cause. There is never a single driving cause to an issue. Single events may lead to singular conclusions on a microscopic scale, but often time are never lead to final conclusions on a macroscopic scale.
I am not a denier either. I don't deny that warming is occurring, but I definitely reserve my rights to treat all evidence as suspect with these cultists coming out of the wood work with 100% of their predictions failing.
I want proof, not just evidence. I am sure you understand the fundamental difference right?
"I responded to you, but I admit I think you are ignorant and will not read the things I linked to."
Of course you think I am ignorant, you are being dragged into the realm of pseudo science, and though I would say "thank you" for providing links to material... I asked for "proof" not "evidence". I have seen the evidence... and I agree that it is indeed "evidence" but it is not "proof"... the precious threshold that needs to be met before we start getting married to a bunch of solutions that require radical alterations to how we live. Especially when those radical alterations are being driven by a group of people I know with 100% certainty are going to abuse the power they gain from holding those reigns. Humans have a problem with corruption, it's not a matter of it... it's a matter of when. Therefore all solutions must have an automatic out built into it, and right now... no one is thinking about what happens if they are wrong and we start causing a bunch of human suffering over a bad scientific guess. We have done this many times already when it comes to medicine. I was called the assault on butter and fat a bullshit crusade 2 decades ago. And do you know what helped drive me to that conclusion? A simple chicken egg... if fat was so bad... why does a chicken develop without having a heart attack? Why do the body store energy in fat? Well, the medical industry is starting to back off of that load of BS finally, but the entire time I hate to put up with folks just like you calling me an unintelligent quack that is too ignorant to know what I was talking about. Do you know what else they had back then? They have evidence that said high cholesterol and fat would give you a heart attack then too... but as usual, there is a lot more things going on then just one simple component, proving folks just like you... wrong. Because you found a little evidence and decided that was all you needed to mount a holy crusade to foolishly change civilization. There are people literally dead because of that. Literally Dead, not to mention all the people that have suffered because they believed that trash and altered their diets in unhealthy ways.
Get Proof! Simple!
"None of the intelligent ones doubt that CO2 warms the atmosphere to some degree. Or if there is an intelligent person who doubts it, I would like to meet them."
And that is exactly why you are a cultist. Doubt is the enemy of Faith, it is NOT the enemy of science. You will never run into anyone intelligent by the standards you have set. You will only run into unintelligent people. By the way... avoid the mirror, you will not find any intelligent folks there either.
Stop treating people that don't believe in the same things you do as being ignorant or stupid. They just just do not come to the same conclusions that you do when looking at the evidence. And since you make it clear that the only intelligent people on the subject are the cultists then you leave little room for discussion on the subject. You are exactly the kind of person this is the problem in this discussion, moron to a fault and anyone unwilling to subscribe to your version of idiocy cannot be intelligent.
I don't view scientists that believe in AGW as stupid, but I do view the people agreeing to Political wealth redistribution schemes as a solution to it as stupid. But folks like you... I just consider you to be nothing more than a member of another moronic cult that can't separate fact from faith.
"We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm things up."
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case. So far it looks to be the case that higher CO2 amounts are contributing to warming things up but that is because we have correlation. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because CO2 its will trap heat does not mean that it traps enough to be of concern.
"How much warming will result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere?"
If they knew that then model predictions would be more accurate and since they cannot determine how much, it adds to skepticism that CO2 is really trapping heat at all.
"Of course, we have estimates for that last question, but the error bars are huge."
And this is why I call much of it a cult... the desire to ramrod legislation and ridicule anyone not buying the mantra. Lets gets some solid provable data out here.
Right now GW is entirely a Hoax, not because of it happening or not, but because the solutions being recommended do not actually solve the problem and are nothing more than money changing and wealth redistribution gimmicks which according to history will likely only lock the solutions down to the wealthy elite as becoming the proprietors and gatekeepers of solutions for global warming creating an even larger wealth gap, despite the believe it would reduce it.
"The destruction of the Antarctic ice sheet may not lead to such a catastrophic rise in the level of the oceans, as previously thought."
Well this won't sound good to the global warming cultists... especially the ones that wanted to put deniers in jail. And they wonder why people scoff at them?
No you are, and just like I said before hand. The Cult of Global Warming no longer has any sanity left.
"The landscape is changing, and it stands to reason that something is causing these changes."
yes that reason is alwasy 100% GW right and nothing else.
" Thanks to ground penetrating radar, we know what."
Utter BS... you only know if it is there or not... not necessarily that you know what caused it.
"So, I guess I'll be waiting for your publication."
No, the responsibility for proving it existed before hand is on then. This is why you are cultist. You require me to publish proof of the opposite but have no trouble believing their unproven accusations without a problem.
All I am asking for is proof that it existed before hand but that is tantamount to "Flaimbait" as mentioned here. You lack sanity!
"representing the loss of 14 billion tons of ice."
So they KNOW for a fact that ice has always been there? Or are we just assuming it was there because we did not find this until now? There are a lot of assumptions going on here... and because of the "Cult of Global Warming" it is now impossible have have responsible discussion.
Was the ice there before? Why is that information not being provided? Oh wait... I get it... just like people of faith are required to accept the existence of their Gods, the GW Cult expects all the deniers to take what they think on faith too!
Science these days is starting to require more faith than many religions.
Most liberals and conservatives are not assholes. The new problem is that the left and right are being mislabeled as liberal/conservative. All of these terms have been turned on their heads.
The origin of the word Liberal is from Liberty... and today's liberals are anti-liberty to the core. Suppression of free speech, public vilification to ruin people, anti-gun rights, pro-heavy regulation... none of which sounds like liberty.
The origin of the word Conservative is "generally" to preserve what is currently already present and to not change that. Desire to change government institutions, shrink government, repeal laws, and facilitate a police states... none of which sounds like conservatism.
That said... Liberals and Conservatives can get along... if you find out that you cannot get along... then it is more likely that you belong to either the extreme right or extreme left... and there is low chance that being extreme is healthy for either you or your enemies!
While it is true that the Constitution is generally shat upon by both sides with zero hesitation, the "General Welfare" clause does actually pass muster to allow Government to regulate telecom to a "certain degree". What that "certain degree" is is the real argument.
So yes, Federal Regulations on Communications is most definitely constitutional the question is just how much of it would be. Example, they can definitely regulate the amount of power your equipment can produce so you cannot use it as a weapon against others and disrupt their lives, but they cannot regulate what you say, because of the 1st. Yes that means public decency laws are often not constitutional, but like I said... people really don't give a shit about the Constitution and there is a good chance you don't either so give it a rest.
That is quite the cocktail of drugs right there...
Seems like less of a mistake and more like no fucks to give.
There are more than enough Democrats on the take with ISP's as well. Additionally, there have been more than enough Democrats in power over time to have solved this problem as well. They were also bitched at for not taking Ajit to task over the cyberattack BS.
This is the same old long game of do nothing but blame the other side for things being bad.
The problems could have been fixed a long time ago. The only game left in town is to first create a problem then campaign against them... true to form the Americans buy the BS.
We have nearly had almost a Century of Telecom regulations and guess what... the monopolies are still here and there is an endless supply of ignorant apologist's to defend these morons.
And don't forget, NN still has loopholes called Zerorating, and I still saw Netflix and several services throttled anyways while NN was in effect so it was worth trash to begin with.
Democrats care as much as the Republicans... they care just enough to get your vote and then they are done with you!
This is an Authoritarian Indoctrination scheme. Teach the kids they don't have freedom, that is how you get them dependent on authority to tell them what they need to do. Creates great little democrats and republicans. You are not allowed to decide how you learn, you must do it our way or else.
Let them have their devices, if they can pass while playing Farmville and texting with their friends then good for them. The only thing school should be doing is teaching them is knowledge, not what to believe or how to behave. If a child will not behave, kick them out of school and make it their parents problem. The entire system has been setup to treat everyone like little assembly line factory workers and it stinks like a rotting pile of disease riddle flesh.
Once the kids start getting kicked out and parents have to start dealing with them... the problem will get fixed in much better ways.
Yes, they can resolve them, the problem is that is not profitable to do that.
To those complaining about the VOIP and Other Telephony systems. The call was made, means it can be traced. The solution is simple, whether you call it the "honor system" or not the company generating the calls can easily be discovered because its their system and they control the tech running across their systems. They can trace the parts that the telephone company cannot. It works just like if a neighbor borrowed your car to rob a bank. The police will pay you a visit and find out who you loaned your car to. There is a chain of responsibility and the jackass at the end of it is the culprit, people are just too lazy to do the work until someone important gets threatened then they start finding people damn fast.
The problem is the same problem it has always been, people not understanding anything.
"I do think that regulations are appropriate and somewhat effective"
I share you views on the detriment of IP protections on this, but I think it is going to be clear that your definition of what is appropriate or effective are likely going to be radically different from mine.
"One example of a simple yet effective change in Intellectual Property law that helps innovation is disallowing certain things from being patentable."
A good idea and one that I would agree with on its face but it won't work all of the way. All Monsanto has to do is buy up everything, it has been done before and will be done again. The only thing the regulation does is move the goal post. We need regulations that stop treating businesses has Holy Entities that require loads of money to challenge. Though I will say, your proposed solution is a far sight better to have than not have that said.
Well the police get this hardware from the military so the military is the justification for getting these tools created and training on them.
balaam's ass is right on the money here.
Not only that, but once a business has this shit locked down they are just going to hide behind the government skirts when people lame blame at their feet by just saying... we followed all regulations.
Businesses like Monsanto have little reason to do better, unless that doing better means they make more money or gain more power/monopoly over something. Improving the agriculture, science, or society is absolutely NOT a goal.
No, the largest issue with GM crops is the Government Regulatory enforcement of who can own the modification making something that can naturally grow automatic property of someone or a business.
I have less problem with GMO than I have with the regulatory landscape letting companies like Monsanto gut our agricultural industry with lawsuits to force farmers to become their personal farmers when their "government granted ownership" of the DNA in those seeds spread into the wild which is exactly what nature likes to fucking do and something Monsanto counted upon and bribed your "ignorant" regulators to allow.
And as usual most people here are glossing over that huge problem because as usual, they have their own little "dunning-Kruger" problems. I can accept that I have it as well, but I also know that you are mostly correct in your statements despite that, however that you still advocate to increase the parts that caused the problem under the guise of decreasing the problem in a huge glaring flag.
Instead of regulating it because of "corporate greed" it needs to be deregulated, and instead open the businesses to liability when their products can be implicated in hurting folks or the environment. That will provide far more fucking regulatory control than easy to buy politicians that you "religiously believe" will look after these things responsibly. They can be bought off just as easily as you can be fooled, and neither are particularly high hills to climb! Most of the problems we have today are from people like you that think we can solve the problem with an ignorant politician whose only goal is to game the damned system. There is a word for this... it's called reaping what you sow!
When someone says "they are the professionals" or "I am the professional" ignore them. They have nothing intelligent to say. Everyone is a human and they have the same problem... wanting to be right regardless of the outcome of the argument to get there.
First is the gate-keeping... the idea that if you are not credentialed in some way to speak on the subject then your input is not valid.
Next comes the Sheeplism... if you say something that is not "group-think" approved then you must be marginalized or discredited.
Then comes the Closed-Loop problem. The same people teaching the subject only pass or certify the people that believe in the subject in the "proscribed" way leading to in-the-box thinking where thought conformity is encouraged more than the goal of knowledge transfer or individual creative thought. It leads to mono-idealism where at best only one or two camps of anything can exist because there is no support for a 3rd since you are not allow to have your own opinions and will be over-powered by the already present non-thinking larger group of idiots.
And just like this article... Being opposed to scientific consensus makes you an idiot. Well, that in and of instead only reveals the moron writing this article is the biggest fucking moron. There has been more than enough scientific consensus that were wrong. In fact many "famous" scientists have spoken at length about problems like this and having to face it down in their professional careers. The endless cacophony of people seriously affected by the illusions of their own superiority calling out people that are actually more correct than them as morons.
"Science isn't "right" or "wrong". It's simply a model of how things work based on analysis of available data."
There is still a context for it being right or wrong. Literally the entire reason they conduct tests... to you know... find out if the hypothesis cannot be dis-proven to become a theory. If a Hypothesis or theory can be proven, then it likely will become a Law or Fact which then makes it... right (correct) instead of wrong (incorrect). Additionally, you can still be right or wrong without having possession of any information or model for analysis... you just need info and models to help convince others you are right. The sky is blue right? How do I go about convincing you of that?
" Either the model accurately reflects observation or it does not."
Comment is too obtuse or subjective to work with, likely on purpose. What is accurate or not is in the eye of the beholder and often up to interpretation based on what one believes evidence to represent. A broken window with a ball nearby accurately reflects an observation that the ball broke the window... and yet can still be totally wrong.
"Either it helps predict or it does not." Broken window and ball again here... it can help predict a false positive.
"If you're on a search for "right" and "wrong", then maybe you're the one who's confusing science with religion."
No, that is where I am unique as a person... I keep science and religion properly separated, hence my complaint that many of you are failing to do that. I treat the science as it should be. I do not worship it, I do not treat it as infallible, I do not allow majority opinions to justify them, I do not allow it to convince me religion is false and I do not allow religion to convince me that science is false. If God exists, science is one of the ways we can learn how God did something. It is not against the existence of a God or Gods, it is a sign of a small mind to think so as well. It is also the sign of a small mind when religious folks trash the sciences considering that their God(s) gave them a brain. God's don't need being with brains to be worshiped. A God can compel your obedience.
lol, yea... but only for a little while. Until I open up a news site and read something like this again.
It just amazes me that people stop acting like humans and their corrupting influences stops existing once you call them "Scientist's" or "Government Personnel" or by "Political Label" and then start acting like they are infallible or too good to be touched. Sounds more like the Catholic Church to me... I guess they are all jealous that the Pope beat them to the claim of being infallible and excommunicating those not parroting the mantra's because only the "Clergy" can understand while the lay folk can't.
"I feel like you're talking about science journalism, here, rather than actual science."
No, talking about the real science. Sure journalism is also to blame but that is a red herring or straw-man argument. Just stick to the science parts keep the journalism out of it. You are pulling it in because you already know you are wrong and hate being called out on it.
"I'll grant that scientists sometimes engage in that as a marketing tool, but I really don't feel like SCIENCE came to me and said "Butter is bad", any more than I feel like DEMOCRACY came to me and said "Guns are good" or "Cardi B is an excellent singer"."
Completely unrelated arguments. Doctors all over whom are supposed to be trained to properly disseminate the science to their patients said butter was bad because science said that. Is this just another attempt to lay the blame on the journalists? Are we to treat the doctors, "Scientists of the Body" in this case like courts treat the police? Not expected to know or understand the information/laws they enforce/act upon? Are you saying you knowingly put your life into the hands of a person that ignores the science and follows the journalism?
"Even if SCIENCE did make statements like that, I currently live in a country where a lot of people make arguments about how the world is flat, the earth was created in less than 13.5 billion years (plus or minus), and that vaccinations cause autism and chemtrails and fluoride are mind-control devices. I'm not sure what you expect science to do, here."
And that is why I called it a Church, your arguments are just as unreasonable as theirs. You are not even intelligent enough to understand you look and sound like those you hate, just on the opposite side.
Science has made all sorts of contradictory statements, and people like you treat a lot of it as gospel. I am trying to get you stop making it a Church and just leave it as it should be... science.
If God exists with the power they claim then Science cannot touch that. Put yourself in the shoes of a developer that creates a virtual world. Constructs in that world cannot know they are virtual for it is real to them as you have defined it. Unless you give them the capacity to see outside of that reality they are like you. They see a 13.5 billion year old existence... even if it is only just 3 seconds in the frame of time of a dimension above it. You cannot see past 3 dimensions because that is where you exist... how do you describe a 3rd dimension to a 2 dimensional being? They might be able to conceptualize it, but can they fully understand?
I am not expecting Science to do anything, what I am expecting is for folks like you to stop making it into a church and worshiping it like it has a God... one where YOU just like those that ridiculed Copernicus for thinking the Sun was at the Center of the universe instead of Earth. The problem is that Copernicus was not right either, he just was not as wrong as the others. But because of people like you, the ones in the major, become the oppressors because they did not parrot your views.
This is the current Science, sure it has always had elements of this problem, scientists are humans, but even the scientists themselves ridicule each other for their ignorance and stupidity.
A couple of my favorite quotes on this subject.
Einstein ~ "Only Two Things Are Infinite, the Universe and Human Stupidity, and I Do Not Know About the Former."
You are one of the humans he was talking about, along with those the modded my comments down.
Freeman Dyson ~ "Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to mo
Yea, it's a real shame that science progresses one funeral at a time [Max Planck]. First coffee was bad, then its good, eggs were bad then they were good, milk was bad then good and now bad again depending on who you ask, fat is bad and here recently it is becoming good again. The only minds that are made up about this are the unmade minds.
Science definitely should have the ear of the people, but most of the time the people never check out who is signing the checks. Most of the time, most of the science is mostly wrong. Of course the benefit of decent science is that it will correct for this and change how it researches and its claims when new evidence is presented or something new is learned that might be helpful to learn the truth. But today, its not that anymore, it's all confirmation bias. Evidence that does not support the pursuit is omitted or assailed when presented by the opposition. The opposition... constantly treating people that are looking for the truth as well as though they are opposition. How quaint!
Even the term "climate deniers" is nothing more than a baseless accusation against anyone that does not "believe" or parrot the proscribed mantras.
I don't not believe in climate change, I just do not see enough evidence that can prove it, and definitely not enough to let a bunch of corrupt politicians come up with their version of a solution to it. But do you know what? I want the research to continue, until they get enough to prove it one way or the other. Many people here are mistaken that "a scientific consensus" is the only requirement or even a good requirement... well it's not. How many times has the "scientific consensus" been wrong? Far too many to ever use that logic while expecting to be taken seriously. Even climate change has its own history of flip flopping, heck it even got downplayed during the GW phase only to be just now refereed to as "Climate Change".
Is it warming? I don't have a reason to doubt that claim, but I have more than enough reasons to doubt that the scientific consensus knows why or how to fix it, and I definitely have good cause to doubt that the same people that can't even resolve a government shutdown will have a viable solution. Even Macron can't get the yellow vest under control.
I definitely want to get renewable working, but not just because of GW. And like this article, some people are missing sleep, but what are we going to do about it? run around and knock people the fuck out so they do get a bit of shuteye?
I know... how about a "sleep tax"! That will make them jump for joy!
heck I even bet that the reason they are saying that it is already too late to stop it now no matter what we do is because they need a fall back if they get their way and get all sorts of climate change legislation done and we still bake like little potatoes. But hey... lets not let a good crisis go to waste eh?
"a growing number of scientists"..."are bringing evangelical zeal to the message"
I think the new church of science has become well established. Research that cannot be duplicated, constant misrepresentation of facts or evidence, outright deception and money pandering.
I am a big fan of science, but it has become more of a religion of late than the search for truth about our world.
The first problem is tribalism. It's okay when their side illegally or unconstitutionally does something... just not okay when those not on their side do the same.
The second problem is...
Congress cannot constitutionally grant any agency power to write regulations... they may only regulate with the laws congress wrote.
Agencies at best can only ask/recommend for Congress to make regulations for them to enforce.
Article 1 section 1
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Many people have ignorantly and maliciously caused people to think that section 8 sub-section 18 allows congress to let agencies like the FCC to actually create regulation they can then enforce without Congress having to pass them and signed by the President.
It is pretty much the same as if the Police were allowed to create laws to enforce whenever they like. Just imagine how much value there would be in corporations to buy police departments... like they currently like to "buy" agencies like the FCC?