There ar emany uses for twitter, just becasue that twit can' think of anything of value, he assumes there isn't anything of value.
The fact that you subscribe to specific people is completely lost on him. He doesn't gte it; whivch is fine. WHat annoys me is he immiedtly pouts aside in actual practical us people use it for. Basically Scotsman fallacy.
Twitter is used as RSS "That's not what twitter is really for!" Its used to organize groups: "That's not what twitters for". You can fallow something you enjoy "No one want to do that, twitter is a failure." Million of people us it "Fine, but ti's still no good at what it does. As such it's worthless"
Clearly, you don't like twitter becasue you don't find a use for it. IT's like saying mulitools suck becasuse you can't find a use for them.
"other than revolutions, I see no practical or social value." that's a pretty huge social reason right there. But lets think WHY it works for revolutions. Quick exchanges of succinct information that only goes to eople who are interested in that information.
SO, yeah thwre are a bunch of people who choose to use twitter for , what you would consider, inane reasons. So what? you don't have to follow those people. It's a tool, it helps people. IT's not for you, fine, so what? that doesn't make is useless or a waste. For example, I was in a diet support group, and we would all tweet fat and calorie intake when every we ate anything. Are YOU interested in what we eat? probably not. But what are you interested in?
It's easier to use then email*, so great for portable devices.
I'm not sure why you think succinct lacks quality. It might lack depth, but that's different.
Another use I use it for is family communication. I know what family members on the other side of the world are doing. Yeah if I get a tweet that's like "Just developed a new chemical laser etching system" I will shoot them an email, or phone call for more information. In the old days, you might talk to a distant family member once every few months or longer. And then half the stuff you have done had been forgotten, and it was expensive.
I"m not some teen all hyper spaz about new technology. I would have loved to have something similar in the 70's would have been easier to organized our DnD games. Or I could have gotten a tweet the the surf was righteous.
The ability to communicate with a small or large group of people easily and instantly is a powerful game changer. I remember a time that when you needed information from a friend, you stayed home all day.
Now we can go anywhere and still communicate. Twitter is a tool. Just because you can't find a use for it, doesn't mean you should be a tool.
No necessarily, it could also be a little something called 'lessons learned'. It would only be a fallacy if we knew the out come would not be desirable. Ex: I bought a ticket to fly some where. I learn that place is a crap whole, but I go anyways knowing I won't have a good time because I have already bought the ticket. Last time we where there, we just left without wrapping anything up, and the hole was filled by al qaeda.
So, yes there is legitimate non fallacious reasons to stay until a certain level of government is functioning
More of a sunk cost dilemma. IS the risk of just leaving and the government falling apart and being fractured by extremist worth more then the additional cost of leaving in an orderly manner.
Ice core sampling goes back millions of years. It's pretty good science. But, hey lets not let knowledge and facts cloud you're ignorant judgement. I mean, 50 years of research is clearly no match for you ignorant opinion.
If you don't have an actual cause that hasn't been shown incorrect already, lets hear it, otherwise shut the fuck up. I'm tired of people like you poisoning the conversation with your ignorance.
That's not what it says or means at all. It means there is a range. Had yo actually READ THE DAMN ARTICLE instead of see one phrase you don't understand and then attempt to deride the article, you would have understood that. You would have also understood that even at the highest range, ti's not where near the amount of emission from people.
You can fill up a measuring cup. When you are done, you will be uncertian iof the exact amount of water in the cup. For example you may have a range of + or - 8 drops.
What you are certain of is that you have about a cup of water.
What they are certain fo is the man puts out many, many more tonnes of CO2 the Volcanoes. You might raise a point worth considering if the numbers where close. Be at best we put 70 TIMES more CO2 into the atmosphere then the worse case volcano.
There is always going to be a range. From instrument limitation, to different amount of volcanic activity every year.
"While there is uncertainty in the measurements--researchers estimate between 0.13 and 0.44 billion metric tons per year, with their best estimates between 0.15 and 0.26 billion tons--even the highest end of the range is dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions of 35 billion metric tons in 2010."
" I don't really think AGW proponents really believe in it" Yeah, you keep the delusion.
it' snot hokum when its has data to back it up, and makes predictions. Of course breaking down what AGW people believe based on a post in slashdot so you can prop up denying based on nothing, then you truly have no argument You are a complete denier, that makes no effort to understand anything deeper then cherry picked data.
the IPCC doesn't have a credibility of zero, and your the oil companies bitch for thinking so. When the countries that stand to gain the most from ignoring global warming acknowledged it's man made, that has weight.
Define cost? dollars? advancement?
Are you really such a simpleton that you have to have a hugely complex issue boiled down to a dollar amount?
Fine. We could do ti for Zero Dollars. Outlaw the burning of organic matter, stone anyone who burns organic matter. Stupid unrealistic questions deserve stupid unrealistic answers.
"By proposing solutions without taking costs into account, you are doing nothing but pointless handwaving. " false. Proposing solution is an engineering science issue. Getting funding and setting priority is a policy issue. It's almost like it's complex and involves a lot of people or something.
TO start planning for an ocean rise along the coast seem perfectly reasonable.
And so what if it's expensive? this isn't about it being marginal less comfortable. This is about the displacement of million of people, it's about crops, it's about water, and it is about advancement of the species.
Id we also stop spew out the particulate matter and the CO2, right this instant, we would have a sharp increase in temperature start in a few months, and then taper off and return in a couple of hundred years.
If it was JUST the CO2, we would see a decline in the increase, and a flattening out in a bout 75 years, then a decrease.
Unless we keep cutting down rain forests and create dead spots in the ocean,. The it will increase for even longer. Probably.
Lets cut to the cache. Planets are not warming up in conjunction with the earth.
If the sun was cause the brief warming we saw on mars* it would be 4 times hotter on the earth do to a little thing calls inverse cube law.
And pointing out the some doesn't even understand the basic science of what they are talking about isn't poisoning the well, it's pointing out that his opinion is worthless. Had he said "That guy drive was in jail" THAT would have been poisoning the well. I wish people on slashdot would understand the logical fallacy they go on about. really people, wikipedia.
"So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."" False, heating doesn't correspond to the solar activity, If it did it would return to the temperature is was when the sun did It does not. Obviously there should be about a month lag, cause that's how long it take an increased temperature at the sun to heat the earth. And for the earth to cool back down when the sun isn't as 'hot'.
"Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect." I'm not sure how you xcan say that and still thing CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It makes no sense.
Yes it MIGHT be a local effect. Because we don't any data to ascribe to it the ides that it's anything more then local All of which is besides the point, Even if the warming is global, it does not mean it's link to earth, and it it was the same cause as earths we would see rising and falling at the same time, but to a substantially different degree do to distance, orbit, and other science you probably don't understand. Not that you ever let your lack of understanding stop you from pretending like you know WTF you are talking about.
And you don't address his main point: They sue cherry picking data. If solar was causing the climate change on earth and mars, then it would be on every other body ion the solar system, and it isnt. Which proves his point: they use cherry picked data.
In science, proving climate change isn't human caused would get you more prestige and power. Proving new understanding is prestige with science, maintaining the status quo is how priest gain power.
False. Consensus is part of science. That's because Consensus is achieved through science, and consensus can change with the appropriated evidence. As Tim Minchin so eloquently and accurately said: "Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
Forms: The strength of this argument depends upon two factors: The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion. These conditions may also simply be incorporated into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this: X holds that A is true X is a legitimate expert on the subject. The consensus of experts agrees with X. Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
I highly recommend reading 'Introduction to Critical Reasoning' and 'Introduction to Logic' before churning out logical fallacy accusation. You look like a fool.
That's because you can not conceive of the vast amount of crap we put into the air.
we put over 26 Giggatons of CO2 in the air every year, and it's increasing.
Now 'nature' puts about 440 GT ever year but it also absorbs 440 GT every year. we are spewing out matter above the normal absorption process. 380ppm, and rising. 80ppm Above the largest amount found in ice core samples going back many millions of years. until 1954, C14 was traced, and it's PPM was lowering because of the amount of CO2 we were putting into the air 60+ years ago. This method was not usable after the first atomic explosion. we do know the carbon 13 is lowering when compared to carbon 12.
If ANYTHING in my post was new to you, then anything you say is based on ignorance and manipulation. i.e. worthless. And I don't mean 'not much' I mean worth zero.
You can have you opinion, but you can not have you own facts. You opinion is based on nothing but in ignorant gut feeling.
I'm sure people also said: "I just have a hard time believing that objects of different weight fall at the same speed." Regardless of your belief, every, single, piece of evidence points to the fact that humans are the cause of the increase.
I have to wonder, what more evidence do you need?
So what is it is a tax? how else are we going to fix it? I would love some to create giant CO2 traps and then not worry about it any more. But that's not really feasible.
I'm not sure what causes people like you to not accepting the facts. religion? stupidity? Ego?
Because if you clone a 'caveman' you will have a lot less outrages then if you did it with a 'normal' person. Mostly because the people who are against it are idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
There ar emany uses for twitter, just becasue that twit can' think of anything of value, he assumes there isn't anything of value.
The fact that you subscribe to specific people is completely lost on him. He doesn't gte it; whivch is fine. WHat annoys me is he immiedtly pouts aside in actual practical us people use it for. Basically Scotsman fallacy.
Twitter is used as RSS
"That's not what twitter is really for!"
Its used to organize groups:
"That's not what twitters for".
You can fallow something you enjoy
"No one want to do that, twitter is a failure."
Million of people us it
"Fine, but ti's still no good at what it does. As such it's worthless"
Clearly, you don't like twitter becasue you don't find a use for it.
IT's like saying mulitools suck becasuse you can't find a use for them.
"other than revolutions, I see no practical or social value."
that's a pretty huge social reason right there. But lets think WHY it works for revolutions. Quick exchanges of succinct information that only goes to eople who are interested in that information.
SO, yeah thwre are a bunch of people who choose to use twitter for , what you would consider, inane reasons. So what? you don't have to follow those people.
It's a tool, it helps people. IT's not for you, fine, so what? that doesn't make is useless or a waste.
For example, I was in a diet support group, and we would all tweet fat and calorie intake when every we ate anything. Are YOU interested in what we eat? probably not. But what are you interested in?
It's easier to use then email*, so great for portable devices.
I'm not sure why you think succinct lacks quality. It might lack depth, but that's different.
Another use I use it for is family communication. I know what family members on the other side of the world are doing. Yeah if I get a tweet that's like "Just developed a new chemical laser etching system" I will shoot them an email, or phone call for more information.
In the old days, you might talk to a distant family member once every few months or longer. And then half the stuff you have done had been forgotten, and it was expensive.
I"m not some teen all hyper spaz about new technology. I would have loved to have something similar in the 70's would have been easier to organized our DnD games. Or I could have gotten a tweet the the surf was righteous.
The ability to communicate with a small or large group of people easily and instantly is a powerful game changer. I remember a time that when you needed information from a friend, you stayed home all day.
Now we can go anywhere and still communicate. Twitter is a tool. Just because you can't find a use for it, doesn't mean you should be a tool.
*which is for old people.
Well drudge had lost all credibility. IT's the world weekly news of politics.
Why? why do you love to hate twitter? it makes no damn sense.
No necessarily, it could also be a little something called 'lessons learned'. It would only be a fallacy if we knew the out come would not be desirable.
Ex: I bought a ticket to fly some where. I learn that place is a crap whole, but I go anyways knowing I won't have a good time because I have already bought the ticket.
Last time we where there, we just left without wrapping anything up, and the hole was filled by al qaeda.
So, yes there is legitimate non fallacious reasons to stay until a certain level of government is functioning
More of a sunk cost dilemma. IS the risk of just leaving and the government falling apart and being fractured by extremist worth more then the additional cost of leaving in an orderly manner.
Because some people can care about more things then just themselves.
Not you, obviously.
Maybe.
Twitter doesn't leak anything, it just delivers messages.
Also worth noting - The mailman doesn't write the letters you get, and you ISP doesn't compose all those emails you get.
Also, it' not much of a leak he's going there it it's a tweet that he is already there.
Ice core sampling goes back millions of years.
It's pretty good science.
But, hey lets not let knowledge and facts cloud you're ignorant judgement.
I mean, 50 years of research is clearly no match for you ignorant opinion.
If you don't have an actual cause that hasn't been shown incorrect already, lets hear it, otherwise shut the fuck up. I'm tired of people like you poisoning the conversation with your ignorance.
That's not what it says or means at all. It means there is a range.
Had yo actually READ THE DAMN ARTICLE instead of see one phrase you don't understand and then attempt to deride the article, you would have understood that. You would have also understood that even at the highest range, ti's not where near the amount of emission from people.
You can fill up a measuring cup. When you are done, you will be uncertian iof the exact amount of water in the cup. For example you may have a range of + or - 8 drops.
What you are certain of is that you have about a cup of water.
What they are certain fo is the man puts out many, many more tonnes of CO2 the Volcanoes.
You might raise a point worth considering if the numbers where close. Be at best we put 70 TIMES more CO2 into the atmosphere then the worse case volcano.
There is always going to be a range. From instrument limitation, to different amount of volcanic activity every year.
"While there is uncertainty in the measurements--researchers estimate between 0.13 and 0.44 billion metric tons per year, with their best estimates between 0.15 and 0.26 billion tons--even the highest end of the range is dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions of 35 billion metric tons in 2010."
Wow, what a bunch of pop psychology bullshit.
" I don't really think AGW proponents really believe in it"
Yeah, you keep the delusion.
it' snot hokum when its has data to back it up, and makes predictions.
Of course breaking down what AGW people believe based on a post in slashdot so you can prop up denying based on nothing, then you truly have no argument
You are a complete denier, that makes no effort to understand anything deeper then cherry picked data.
At this point, denier is accurate. Sorry, but it's true.
Man had the same attitude before the bible existed. The Romans? Persians?
the IPCC doesn't have a credibility of zero, and your the oil companies bitch for thinking so.
When the countries that stand to gain the most from ignoring global warming acknowledged it's man made, that has weight.
Define cost? dollars? advancement?
Are you really such a simpleton that you have to have a hugely complex issue boiled down to a dollar amount?
Fine. We could do ti for Zero Dollars. Outlaw the burning of organic matter, stone anyone who burns organic matter.
Stupid unrealistic questions deserve stupid unrealistic answers.
"By proposing solutions without taking costs into account, you are doing nothing but pointless handwaving. "
false. Proposing solution is an engineering science issue. Getting funding and setting priority is a policy issue.
It's almost like it's complex and involves a lot of people or something.
TO start planning for an ocean rise along the coast seem perfectly reasonable.
And so what if it's expensive? this isn't about it being marginal less comfortable.
This is about the displacement of million of people, it's about crops, it's about water, and it is about advancement of the species.
The longer we wait, the more expensive it gets.
Id we also stop spew out the particulate matter and the CO2, right this instant, we would have a sharp increase in temperature start in a few months, and then taper off and return in a couple of hundred years.
If it was JUST the CO2, we would see a decline in the increase, and a flattening out in a bout 75 years, then a decrease.
Unless we keep cutting down rain forests and create dead spots in the ocean,. The it will increase for even longer.
Probably.
sure, and much of it is in the ground, and we are releasing to to the tune of 26+Gt per years.
Are you shitting me? alternet? for fuck sakes, try to find and actual source instead of that crap.
Lets cut to the cache.
Planets are not warming up in conjunction with the earth.
If the sun was cause the brief warming we saw on mars* it would be 4 times hotter on the earth do to a little thing calls inverse cube law.
And pointing out the some doesn't even understand the basic science of what they are talking about isn't poisoning the well, it's pointing out that his opinion is worthless.
Had he said "That guy drive was in jail" THAT would have been poisoning the well.
I wish people on slashdot would understand the logical fallacy they go on about. really people, wikipedia.
"So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.""
False, heating doesn't correspond to the solar activity, If it did it would return to the temperature is was when the sun did It does not. Obviously there should be about a month lag, cause that's how long it take an increased temperature at the sun to heat the earth. And for the earth to cool back down when the sun isn't as 'hot'.
"Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect."
I'm not sure how you xcan say that and still thing CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It makes no sense.
Yes it MIGHT be a local effect. Because we don't any data to ascribe to it the ides that it's anything more then local
All of which is besides the point, Even if the warming is global, it does not mean it's link to earth, and it it was the same cause as earths we would see rising and falling at the same time, but to a substantially different degree do to distance, orbit, and other science you probably don't understand. Not that you ever let your lack of understanding stop you from pretending like you know WTF you are talking about.
And you don't address his main point: They sue cherry picking data. If solar was causing the climate change on earth and mars, then it would be on every other body ion the solar system, and it isnt. Which proves his point: they use cherry picked data.
*weak evidence, btw
In science, proving climate change isn't human caused would get you more prestige and power.
Proving new understanding is prestige with science, maintaining the status quo is how priest gain power.
False. Consensus is part of science. That's because Consensus is achieved through science, and consensus can change with the appropriated evidence.
As Tim Minchin so eloquently and accurately said:
"Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
You are the one using religion for your opinion.
Also, Look up Appeal to authority. hint: it doesn't apply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Forms:
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
These conditions may also simply be incorporated into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:
X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
I highly recommend reading 'Introduction to Critical Reasoning' and 'Introduction to Logic' before churning out logical fallacy accusation. You look like a fool.
That's because you can not conceive of the vast amount of crap we put into the air.
we put over 26 Giggatons of CO2 in the air every year, and it's increasing.
Now 'nature' puts about 440 GT ever year but it also absorbs 440 GT every year.
we are spewing out matter above the normal absorption process.
380ppm, and rising. 80ppm Above the largest amount found in ice core samples going back many millions of years.
until 1954, C14 was traced, and it's PPM was lowering because of the amount of CO2 we were putting into the air 60+ years ago. This method was not usable after the first atomic explosion.
we do know the carbon 13 is lowering when compared to carbon 12.
If ANYTHING in my post was new to you, then anything you say is based on ignorance and manipulation. i.e. worthless. And I don't mean 'not much' I mean worth zero.
You can have you opinion, but you can not have you own facts. You opinion is based on nothing but in ignorant gut feeling.
I'm sure people also said:
"I just have a hard time believing that objects of different weight fall at the same speed." Regardless of your belief, every, single, piece of evidence points to the fact that humans are the cause of the increase.
I have to wonder, what more evidence do you need?
So what is it is a tax? how else are we going to fix it? I would love some to create giant CO2 traps and then not worry about it any more. But that's not really feasible.
I'm not sure what causes people like you to not accepting the facts. religion? stupidity? Ego?
Not true. It is roomy. Compared to other cars in it's class. I've ridden in the back seat, and had plenty of room.
There was a big protest yesterday, and I could help but notice the number of business men, and elderly who where involved.
Just sayin' that maybe you should actually talk to them instead of just watch the nut jobs the media puts on the air?
Because if you clone a 'caveman' you will have a lot less outrages then if you did it with a 'normal' person. Mostly because the people who are against it are idiots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2KRpRMSu4g