The plant cost $2.2B and has a gross capacity of 392 megawatts
That may be the theoretical capacity — which it never achieved for whatever reason.
In the last 10 years solar+wind have been leading new capacity installation world wide
Yeah, and the regulatory climate — whereby government would sponsor one, but fine the other kinds of energy has nothing to do with it. Sure.
This very plant we are talking about required 3/4th of its costs to be underwritten by government — use your own $1.6 bln we, the taxpayers, have lost now. If you really think, it is a great idea, use your own money next time, Ok?
We used to test nuclear weapons in Nevada's desert and other remote places in the US proper before. Certainly, building a nuclear power-plant in the same (or similar) locations would've been acceptably risky — there has never been a nuclear explosion at any such plant in the world. But no, let's use what is not working today.
Gee, if only we could elect someone to try to make America great again...
Government is uniquely positioned to take longer term bets that the corporate world will not take.
Bullshit. Absolute stinking cow manure.
You would not offer citations for your claim, but here are counter-examples:
Carlyle raises $3 billion for long-term projects
The fund, which has a lifespan of up to 20 years, will pursue deals that don’t fit the mandate of Carlyle’s flagship private equity fund, which seeks to cash out of individual investments in three to five years.
Private Equity Investors Open to Longer-Term Deals
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is “open to conversations” with private-equity firms about partnerships to buy and hold companies for longer than the traditional five-year investment period
Long-Term Investors Keep It Real
Private investors have been investing in real assets for a very long time. Agriculture, real estate, infrastructure and even shipping investments have been common for 1,000 years or more. In fact, the term “ carried interest” can be traced back hundreds of years to a time when investors backed ship’s captains to go out and acquire goods and would then compensate the captains with an “interest” in whatever they managed to “carry” back to their home port.
the max horizon is 3 years out.
Another steaming pile of excrement — five, not three years is considered the "traditional" investment period in the above cases.
Different people have different investment priorities, that's true. But some do have long-term ones.
by taking a longer term view they will quite regularly waste money
It is not the length of the term, that wastes money — it is the incompetence of the folks doing the "investing" coupled with the absence of self-interest and personal risk. A private investor putting his millions into Solyndra would not have anything left to invest again. How many bureaucrats got similarly disqualified at the DOE?
Because the government does more than just one thing, and the world is not simply black and white.
The government sucks at everything... A few things — such as law-enforcement — can not be done by competing enterprises and must be a monopoly. But everything else can — and therefore should — be done by competing establishments.
Public services that the government provides is necessary for a well-functioning society.
They may (or may not) be necessary, but the government is not the only possible source of these services. For example, even if most people would like the pharmaceuticals carefully reviewed and examined before they buy them, it does not necessarily have to be done by a government agency. Various Consumer Reports — themselves competing with each other for both your trust and the manufacturers' business — can do the job, while still allowing the careless among us to exercise their freedom to be stupid and buy unreviewed.
fund the police department.
Police are a bad example, because no one objects to having them in principle...
no where did I find them agreeing with your 89% figure
The article cites the figure and then proceeds to explain, why it is acceptable — without disputing the number. In other words, they accept it. The article (known as Watts 2009) is thus entered into evidence.
no where does it say that primary raw temperature data has been lost, just that the CRU does not have it any more
Had a copy still existed somewhere, they would've procured one to avoid the embarrassment. And it was a major scandal — two months later NY Times ran a "rebuttal" (the dishonest newspaper's first mention of the problem, apparently), which still would not say, other copies exist. You are grasping at straws — and drowning anyway.
80 mm is right at the top of the uncertainty range in the graph
You wrote yourself, that the prediction was 50-60 mm, while the actual values — according to, once again, you — was 80mm. That's a fail... You may recall, that one of the rules I put down was that the cited predictions, if quantifiable, be correct within 20% of the predicted figure(s).
Don't you consider it significant that real world observations have been greater than predictions?
It may be significant, but it is unclear, of what. That the seas are rising may be observable and measurable (preferably without "weighting" and "adjusting" the observed figures, of course). That they are rising because SUVs — that is not clear at all.
10 thousand years ago Tasmania — already home to some humans — was cut off of mainland Australia by rising seas. A few thousand years earlier ancestors of Kodiak bears became separated from mainland grizzlies — by rising seas (or, maybe, the melting ice — another phenomenon blamed on humans today). Kodiaks are now a distinct subspecies... Humans crossed into Americas over what is now a straights, but was a land bridge until seas rose.
Climate scientists today blame humanity with the intensity of ancient shamans. But, to establish their scientific bona-fides to people actually familiar with scientific process, they need to make scientific predictions — verifiable, falsifiable, as well as verified and not falsified. And that's where my challenge and your (so far — failing) attempts to answer it come in...
I am collaborating with no one.
I'll take your word for it. Most comforting, thanks.
This is another illustration of how clumsy, inefficient, and occasionally evil the government is — even in otherwise decent countries. At least, the guy's sentence is "suspended"...
And everyone seems to agree with the Libertarians in these cases, but, when the topic is something else, a solid chunk of the audience suddenly switches into believing, that the government is not only an acceptable, but the best solution available.
Why, for example, would the same people be outraged at the government's goons in some discussions (this one, or anything about Snowden, or the CIA), but turn immediately around defending same in discussions of public schools and roads, health service, or municipal WiFi?
Before complaining about it, learn how a loan guarantee is different from a loan.
I know the difference very well, thank you. At best, the US would've been left with nothing. At worst, we were $1.6bln short. And we never stood a chance at making profit.
BTW, this "worst" has happened long before this fire. In March the plant was already reported on the verge of closing — and asking for a federal grant (not even a loan!) of $539 million (that's three times Google's investment!) to help them pay off earlier debts.
Your gasping at straws is pathetic...
spent on the US Military
Maintaining capable military is a responsibility explicitly given to the federal government by the US Constitution. We may be (are!) spending too much, but there is nothing wrong with such spending in principle.
why the auto companies aren't required to pay back the gov't in full for getting their asses bailed out
Another no-brainer. Because that would hurt the labor unions — part of the electorate solidly in bed with the party in power. Your attempts to switch subject are just as pathetic.
You may wish to rethink your offer — you and I have already sunk much more into this failed enterprise. The submitter's write-up and TFA both concentrate on Google's puny $168 (million), for which Google would've gotten a solid return, had the project worked, while strangely omitting the $1,600 million, which Obama's DOE gave them in loan-guarantees without any hope of earning a profit.
Think of what useful things could've been funded with the money, had it been done the fair — Capitalist — way. You know, when the people making investments a) dispense their own monies, rather than those of captive taxpayers; b) face personal losses from failures and rewards from successes...
For centuries unscrupulous businessmen and employees have used the cover of a "devastating fire" for to cover up failures of owners/managers and to mask theft by the employees.
The Ivanpah solar plant was backed not just by Google's ($168 million), but by Obama's Department of Energy ($1600 million — strangely omitted from the write-up) as well. And it proved to be a major failure long ago. Just two months ago it was reported on the very edge of closing down for not producing enough energy:
The plant only generated 45 percent of expected power in 2014 and only 68 percent in 2015, according to government data.
And what it did produce, cost $200 per megawatt hour — nearly six times the cost of electricity from natural gas-fired power plants. Worse! It actually used the evil natural gas to supplement the solar-cells' output... (Remember this the next time someone tells you, how we could "power the planet" with only a fraction of the land covered by solar cells — if only the evil oil/nuclear/whatever weren't sabotaging the efforts.)
This fire may really have been an accident. But a suspicion, that it was deliberate is certainly no less credible, than the FUD-spreading accusation, some German nuclear plant deliberately released nuclear waste in the air 30 years ago.
I await your scientifically based paper that says that 89% of data collection stations aren't positioned right.
Too late for this tactics. Your fellow alarmists have already accepted the figure — and tried to defend their colleague's incompetence with the "weighting" and "adjusting".
All that was not kept was the CRU's copies of that data.
This may not prove that they are cooks, but your continuing attempts to deny it certainly makes you look incomplete...
I've already given you a couple of examples several time [...] Someone with a lawyer's mindset like you insists the forms be followed.
Gee, you keep calling me "a lawyer" instead of simply posting in the — perfectly reasonable — format I requested.
Besides, are lawyers really bad? I don't see you objecting, when they are used to prosecute "denialiasts" — First Amendment be damned...
By my calculations the sea level rise from 1990 to the start of 2016 is around 80 mm, clearly greater than the projections from the IPCC in 2001.
Seriously? Do you even realize, what you posted? The "prediction" you cited is waay off — according to you! 80 mm instead of the predicted 50-60... What a way to prove validity of a scientific theory!
And it exposes a thing about you and yours — you seek not truth, but a confirmation for your pre-conceived notions. That is why you made this very blunder.
For you a good scientific study is one, that confirms global warming — preferably anthropogenic. It is your primary (if not the sole) criteria. You are no scientist today — even if you ever were...
And then I can not help but notice, that you chose to ignore my question about whether or not you have (less articulate?) collaborators here, who leave the arguing to you while modding me down and you — up. Such question-dodging confirms my suspicions — I'm dealing with a cabal. Whether you are tightly organized or loosely collaborating, I find myself bare-knuckled in a gunfight...
The more of this shit the less people trust nuclear and the more plants close down
That's the whole point of mdsolar posting this unsubstantiated crap and spreading the FUD. He is not just a random poster — he has a pro-solar agenda (either ideological or simply for-profit) and nuclear energy is the main competitor.
Putting all of that carbon back into the atmosphere in a single instant (in geological terms) is our fault.
I'm sure, there was a shaman in Tasmania 10 thousand years ago, who blamed the sins of his fellow tribesmen for the rising seas cutting them off the mainland.
Your proclamations today are about as credible as his were then.
Darling, try marketing a pancake-making machine, that makes no pancakes. I assure you, that demanding from other people to identify, just which part of the machine is responsible for there being no edible output, is not going to help your sales.
I don't know, what's wrong with your theory. But I do see, that it is remarkably short on successful predictions to its name. So short, you can't name any. Or, maybe, you can name 1 or 2, but nothing a major scientific discipline — with hundreds of well-funded disciples — ought to have come up with in several decades of trying.
Gee, yeah. "A recent study by NOAA found no evidence of mistakes by NOAA". Right. The NSA would totally exonerate themselves too, as would Enron.
Sorry, hon, if 89% of your data-collection stations aren't positioned right, your results are junk no matter, how you "adjust" them. Turning a turd into chicken salad has a better chance of succeeding.
There are lots of links to NOAA's methods and reasons
Sure, there are. And they may even be perfectly reasonable. The point was, they are themselves subject to reason — not as objective, straightforward, and indisputable as writing down values from thermometer would've been.
No one has destroyed any of the raw data
Funny, that's not, what the NY Times article says... It acknowledges the destruction (emphasis mine):
"Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Funny, they could not spare one more tape for the originals and chose to use the space for the "value-added" data instead — even though reproducing the "value addition" would've been easy with a straightforward algorithm and the raw data, whereas going back to the originals is now impossible.
you will continue to gullibily believe the people who tell you those things
What "the people" told me — that 89% of weather stations were incorrectly positioned — is undeniably true. Police presenting evidence collected this sloppily would have their case thrown out from court, and rightly so. Yet, you wish me to believe you, that some algorithms can correct the sloppiness? Just how gullible do you think I am?
That said, my post you replied to was modded down one notch at about the same time your reply appeared — the pattern I've been noticing before... You would not have a collaborator here, would you? Someone helping you "fight denialists" to "save the planet"?
Anyway, still waiting for a list of successful climate predictions from you... You know the format...
since capitalism and democracy in their current forms began, both
The US is not a Democracy, but a Republic. The rule of the majority in our country is limited by the Constitution. For example, a majority may some day decide, that hate-speech ought to be illegal. But, as long as the First Amendment exists, no such law can be passed.
But, yes, we can continue doing it... Still waiting for period3 to elaborate on his "Insightful" proposal, though.
As I said, the market for this kind of transportation still is reasonably free in the US. Official taxis (and the rent-seeking townhalls, that sell "medallions") fight Uber and Lyft and others equally. The playing field is quite level and the competition certainly exists.
Some other markets — such as insurance, Internet-service provision, or education to name a few — aren't as free, but the solution there is not to add more regulation, but to lower barriers to entry to encourage new players appearing.
The same utility poles, that carry Verizon's and Comcast's cables to houses on my block, can easily support cables of 5 more providers, for example. But governments make it too hard for would-be newcomers. Just look at Google Fiber's map — they've rolled out primarily in the "flyover country", because those "rednecks" still prefer their government smaller than the "urban sophisticates" of the coastal metropolises.
You would expect that most records would be broken in the early years of registration.
And, maybe, they were — but no one would profit from emphasizing the fact, so we do not know about it.
Over the last 20-25 years, we've seen a disproportionate amounts of records being broken
We have also seen a large number of people profiting from the idea of AGW during the same period.
average temperature of 1 or 2 degrees is massive on a global scale
We don't even know, if that's true — for example, satellite observations disagree (until "adjusted") on this with ground-based thermometers. And no wonder:
we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source
The AGW-proponents acknowledge the problems, but claim, they are properly addressed by "adjustments":
when processing their data, the organizations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.
Who is doing the weighting (adjusting) and how? What #define-s do they use in their code? Would they not stop "adjusting" before the results show the trend, which they sincerely believe must be there? See, what is "sold" to the public as objective recordings of scientific instruments are, in fact, results of "adjustments" by unknown programs using unspecified parameters...
But even if it really is true, that temperatures rose 1 degree since 1850 — so what? 10 thousands years ago Tasmania was attached to mainland Australia. It was also possible for bears to cross from mainland Alaska to the islands of Kodiak archipelago (either over land or ice-fields). Then something substantial enough happened to isolate these lands. Whatever it was, it was not the humans discovering fire, was it?
In a democracy, the "free market" can kiss my ass.
Could you elaborate on what this means? Do you wish for companies to be controlled by voters rather than shareholders? Or something completely different?
You are violating one of the most important principles of the free market - free exchange of information.
I'm not violating it. Nor does Uber — unless they deliberately program their app to drain the battery faster somehow. That would've been wrong, but there is not even accusation of that, much less proof.
Uber is not being 'good'
Of course not — never said, they are. I said, it is good for them to have figured this out.
unethically use your private information they have unethically gathered
That's the thing — there is nothing unethical about their gathering of the information. Would their use of it be unethical — I'm not sure... Could you elaborate, why you think so?
when competition keeps prices fair and information is fairly and ethically exchanged.
If you really need to get where you're going, you'll pay just about anything (or at least 9.9 times anything) to ensure you're getting a ride home and won't be stranded
Good for Uber, if really true.
In a free market — and this aspect of it remains reasonably free in the US — the price of everything is the amount a buyer is willing to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be the theoretical capacity — which it never achieved for whatever reason.
Yeah, and the regulatory climate — whereby government would sponsor one, but fine the other kinds of energy has nothing to do with it. Sure.
This very plant we are talking about required 3/4th of its costs to be underwritten by government — use your own $1.6 bln we, the taxpayers, have lost now. If you really think, it is a great idea, use your own money next time, Ok?
We used to test nuclear weapons in Nevada's desert and other remote places in the US proper before. Certainly, building a nuclear power-plant in the same (or similar) locations would've been acceptably risky — there has never been a nuclear explosion at any such plant in the world. But no, let's use what is not working today.
Gee, if only we could elect someone to try to make America great again...
Bullshit. Absolute stinking cow manure.
You would not offer citations for your claim, but here are counter-examples:
Carlyle raises $3 billion for long-term projects The fund, which has a lifespan of up to 20 years, will pursue deals that don’t fit the mandate of Carlyle’s flagship private equity fund, which seeks to cash out of individual investments in three to five years. Private Equity Investors Open to Longer-Term Deals Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is “open to conversations” with private-equity firms about partnerships to buy and hold companies for longer than the traditional five-year investment period Long-Term Investors Keep It Real Private investors have been investing in real assets for a very long time. Agriculture, real estate, infrastructure and even shipping investments have been common for 1,000 years or more. In fact, the term “ carried interest” can be traced back hundreds of years to a time when investors backed ship’s captains to go out and acquire goods and would then compensate the captains with an “interest” in whatever they managed to “carry” back to their home port.Another steaming pile of excrement — five, not three years is considered the "traditional" investment period in the above cases.
Different people have different investment priorities, that's true. But some do have long-term ones.
It is not the length of the term, that wastes money — it is the incompetence of the folks doing the "investing" coupled with the absence of self-interest and personal risk. A private investor putting his millions into Solyndra would not have anything left to invest again. How many bureaucrats got similarly disqualified at the DOE?
The government sucks at everything... A few things — such as law-enforcement — can not be done by competing enterprises and must be a monopoly. But everything else can — and therefore should — be done by competing establishments.
They may (or may not) be necessary, but the government is not the only possible source of these services. For example, even if most people would like the pharmaceuticals carefully reviewed and examined before they buy them, it does not necessarily have to be done by a government agency. Various Consumer Reports — themselves competing with each other for both your trust and the manufacturers' business — can do the job, while still allowing the careless among us to exercise their freedom to be stupid and buy unreviewed.
Police are a bad example, because no one objects to having them in principle...
The article cites the figure and then proceeds to explain, why it is acceptable — without disputing the number. In other words, they accept it. The article (known as Watts 2009) is thus entered into evidence.
Had a copy still existed somewhere, they would've procured one to avoid the embarrassment. And it was a major scandal — two months later NY Times ran a "rebuttal" (the dishonest newspaper's first mention of the problem, apparently), which still would not say, other copies exist. You are grasping at straws — and drowning anyway.
You wrote yourself, that the prediction was 50-60 mm, while the actual values — according to, once again, you — was 80mm. That's a fail... You may recall, that one of the rules I put down was that the cited predictions, if quantifiable, be correct within 20% of the predicted figure(s).
It may be significant, but it is unclear, of what. That the seas are rising may be observable and measurable (preferably without "weighting" and "adjusting" the observed figures, of course). That they are rising because SUVs — that is not clear at all.
10 thousand years ago Tasmania — already home to some humans — was cut off of mainland Australia by rising seas. A few thousand years earlier ancestors of Kodiak bears became separated from mainland grizzlies — by rising seas (or, maybe, the melting ice — another phenomenon blamed on humans today). Kodiaks are now a distinct subspecies... Humans crossed into Americas over what is now a straights, but was a land bridge until seas rose .
Were all those calamities due to the crime of Prometheus, perhaps?
Climate scientists today blame humanity with the intensity of ancient shamans. But, to establish their scientific bona-fides to people actually familiar with scientific process, they need to make scientific predictions — verifiable, falsifiable, as well as verified and not falsified. And that's where my challenge and your (so far — failing) attempts to answer it come in...
I'll take your word for it. Most comforting, thanks.
This is another illustration of how clumsy, inefficient, and occasionally evil the government is — even in otherwise decent countries. At least, the guy's sentence is "suspended"...
And everyone seems to agree with the Libertarians in these cases, but, when the topic is something else, a solid chunk of the audience suddenly switches into believing, that the government is not only an acceptable, but the best solution available.
Why, for example, would the same people be outraged at the government's goons in some discussions (this one, or anything about Snowden, or the CIA), but turn immediately around defending same in discussions of public schools and roads, health service, or municipal WiFi?
I know the difference very well, thank you. At best, the US would've been left with nothing. At worst, we were $1.6bln short. And we never stood a chance at making profit.
BTW, this "worst" has happened long before this fire. In March the plant was already reported on the verge of closing — and asking for a federal grant (not even a loan!) of $539 million (that's three times Google's investment!) to help them pay off earlier debts.
Your gasping at straws is pathetic...
Maintaining capable military is a responsibility explicitly given to the federal government by the US Constitution. We may be (are!) spending too much, but there is nothing wrong with such spending in principle.
Another no-brainer. Because that would hurt the labor unions — part of the electorate solidly in bed with the party in power. Your attempts to switch subject are just as pathetic.
You may wish to rethink your offer — you and I have already sunk much more into this failed enterprise. The submitter's write-up and TFA both concentrate on Google's puny $168 (million), for which Google would've gotten a solid return, had the project worked, while strangely omitting the $1,600 million, which Obama's DOE gave them in loan-guarantees without any hope of earning a profit.
Think of what useful things could've been funded with the money, had it been done the fair — Capitalist — way. You know, when the people making investments a) dispense their own monies, rather than those of captive taxpayers; b) face personal losses from failures and rewards from successes...
For centuries unscrupulous businessmen and employees have used the cover of a "devastating fire" for to cover up failures of owners/managers and to mask theft by the employees.
The Ivanpah solar plant was backed not just by Google's ($168 million), but by Obama's Department of Energy ($1600 million — strangely omitted from the write-up) as well. And it proved to be a major failure long ago. Just two months ago it was reported on the very edge of closing down for not producing enough energy:
And what it did produce, cost $200 per megawatt hour — nearly six times the cost of electricity from natural gas-fired power plants. Worse! It actually used the evil natural gas to supplement the solar-cells' output... (Remember this the next time someone tells you, how we could "power the planet" with only a fraction of the land covered by solar cells — if only the evil oil/nuclear/whatever weren't sabotaging the efforts.)
This fire may really have been an accident. But a suspicion, that it was deliberate is certainly no less credible, than the FUD-spreading accusation, some German nuclear plant deliberately released nuclear waste in the air 30 years ago.
Too late for this tactics. Your fellow alarmists have already accepted the figure — and tried to defend their colleague's incompetence with the "weighting" and "adjusting".
I hate to ask this cliche question, but "Are you stupid or a liar?" CRU have already admitted losing the data — irretrievably.
This may not prove that they are cooks, but your continuing attempts to deny it certainly makes you look incomplete...
Gee, you keep calling me "a lawyer" instead of simply posting in the — perfectly reasonable — format I requested.
Besides, are lawyers really bad? I don't see you objecting, when they are used to prosecute "denialiasts" — First Amendment be damned...
Seriously? Do you even realize, what you posted? The "prediction" you cited is waay off — according to you! 80 mm instead of the predicted 50-60... What a way to prove validity of a scientific theory!
And it exposes a thing about you and yours — you seek not truth, but a confirmation for your pre-conceived notions. That is why you made this very blunder.
For you a good scientific study is one, that confirms global warming — preferably anthropogenic. It is your primary (if not the sole) criteria. You are no scientist today — even if you ever were...
And then I can not help but notice, that you chose to ignore my question about whether or not you have (less articulate?) collaborators here, who leave the arguing to you while modding me down and you — up. Such question-dodging confirms my suspicions — I'm dealing with a cabal. Whether you are tightly organized or loosely collaborating, I find myself bare-knuckled in a gunfight...
That's the whole point of mdsolar posting this unsubstantiated crap and spreading the FUD. He is not just a random poster — he has a pro-solar agenda (either ideological or simply for-profit) and nuclear energy is the main competitor.
Asking this 30 years later and expecting a definitive answer? Seriously?
Nothing is ever perfectly level — quite level is sufficient.
You now have to demonstrate, how Uber is so advantaged over competition, that your lead shoes metaphor applies.
Now they can try finding love on Craigslist:
I'm sure, there was a shaman in Tasmania 10 thousand years ago, who blamed the sins of his fellow tribesmen for the rising seas cutting them off the mainland.
Your proclamations today are about as credible as his were then.
Darling, try marketing a pancake-making machine, that makes no pancakes. I assure you, that demanding from other people to identify, just which part of the machine is responsible for there being no edible output, is not going to help your sales.
I don't know, what's wrong with your theory. But I do see, that it is remarkably short on successful predictions to its name. So short, you can't name any. Or, maybe, you can name 1 or 2, but nothing a major scientific discipline — with hundreds of well-funded disciples — ought to have come up with in several decades of trying.
Gee, yeah. "A recent study by NOAA found no evidence of mistakes by NOAA". Right. The NSA would totally exonerate themselves too, as would Enron.
Sorry, hon, if 89% of your data-collection stations aren't positioned right, your results are junk no matter, how you "adjust" them. Turning a turd into chicken salad has a better chance of succeeding.
Sure, there are. And they may even be perfectly reasonable. The point was, they are themselves subject to reason — not as objective, straightforward, and indisputable as writing down values from thermometer would've been.
Funny, that's not, what the NY Times article says... It acknowledges the destruction (emphasis mine):
Funny, they could not spare one more tape for the originals and chose to use the space for the "value-added" data instead — even though reproducing the "value addition" would've been easy with a straightforward algorithm and the raw data, whereas going back to the originals is now impossible.
What "the people" told me — that 89% of weather stations were incorrectly positioned — is undeniably true. Police presenting evidence collected this sloppily would have their case thrown out from court, and rightly so. Yet, you wish me to believe you, that some algorithms can correct the sloppiness? Just how gullible do you think I am?
That said, my post you replied to was modded down one notch at about the same time your reply appeared — the pattern I've been noticing before... You would not have a collaborator here, would you? Someone helping you "fight denialists" to "save the planet"?
Anyway, still waiting for a list of successful climate predictions from you... You know the format...
Please don't hate, asshole.
The US is not a Democracy, but a Republic. The rule of the majority in our country is limited by the Constitution. For example, a majority may some day decide, that hate-speech ought to be illegal. But, as long as the First Amendment exists, no such law can be passed.
But, yes, we can continue doing it... Still waiting for period3 to elaborate on his "Insightful" proposal, though.
As I said, the market for this kind of transportation still is reasonably free in the US. Official taxis (and the rent-seeking townhalls, that sell "medallions") fight Uber and Lyft and others equally. The playing field is quite level and the competition certainly exists.
Some other markets — such as insurance, Internet-service provision, or education to name a few — aren't as free, but the solution there is not to add more regulation, but to lower barriers to entry to encourage new players appearing.
The same utility poles, that carry Verizon's and Comcast's cables to houses on my block, can easily support cables of 5 more providers, for example. But governments make it too hard for would-be newcomers. Just look at Google Fiber's map — they've rolled out primarily in the "flyover country", because those "rednecks" still prefer their government smaller than the "urban sophisticates" of the coastal metropolises.
And, maybe, they were — but no one would profit from emphasizing the fact, so we do not know about it.
We have also seen a large number of people profiting from the idea of AGW during the same period.
We don't even know, if that's true — for example, satellite observations disagree (until "adjusted") on this with ground-based thermometers. And no wonder:
The AGW-proponents acknowledge the problems, but claim, they are properly addressed by "adjustments":
Who is doing the weighting (adjusting) and how? What #define-s do they use in their code? Would they not stop "adjusting" before the results show the trend, which they sincerely believe must be there? See, what is "sold" to the public as objective recordings of scientific instruments are, in fact, results of "adjustments" by unknown programs using unspecified parameters...
And the raw — unadjusted — data sometimes go to sleep with Hillary Clinton's emails... But not to worry, the "scientists" tell us — it was processed correctly, trust us... So much for reproducibility being a requirement for scientific method — these guys are frauds, not "scientists"...
But even if it really is true, that temperatures rose 1 degree since 1850 — so what? 10 thousands years ago Tasmania was attached to mainland Australia. It was also possible for bears to cross from mainland Alaska to the islands of Kodiak archipelago (either over land or ice-fields). Then something substantial enough happened to isolate these lands. Whatever it was, it was not the humans discovering fire, was it?
Could you elaborate on what this means? Do you wish for companies to be controlled by voters rather than shareholders? Or something completely different?
We are easy to find — just go, where truth is.
I'm not violating it. Nor does Uber — unless they deliberately program their app to drain the battery faster somehow. That would've been wrong, but there is not even accusation of that, much less proof.
Of course not — never said, they are. I said, it is good for them to have figured this out.
That's the thing — there is nothing unethical about their gathering of the information. Would their use of it be unethical — I'm not sure... Could you elaborate, why you think so?
Sure, sure — that's what I meant by free market.
Yes! That's what free market is all about.
No need to petition the government. No need to raise awareness — just call a competitor and be on your way...
Good for Uber, if really true.
In a free market — and this aspect of it remains reasonably free in the US — the price of everything is the amount a buyer is willing to pay.
Keep your batteries charged.