This is, what, your fourth response under my post containing a challenge — and none of them contain admissible examples of the successful predictions made by climate scientists to date.
I'm unlikely to respond here again — do your homework better next time. Fail.
If you are curious, they've compiled a document with the answers.
I'm curious why you keep posting without offering the links like I asked you to... It was not a particularly egregious request. Maybe, the information really is not as easily available as you claim it to be?.. Which would be rather strange, because IPCC and similar bodies have a vast vested interest in presenting their data in the most convincing way possible, don't they?
It is worse in terms of cost. As you've pointed out, we've failed to fully appreciate the impact of even the modest warming we've experienced so far.
That Russia can use northern shipping routes for longer is not worse — it is better for them "in terms of cost". But, either way, that's just economics...
The point remains, it was not a successful prediction. And it is perfectly normal for a scientific discipline to have some failed ideas. It is when its adherents can't cite any successful ones, that one can legitimately doubt, whether it is practiced as a science at all.
Fail. You did not include links to predictions — only to the supposed confirmations. The reason I insist on seeing links separated by space and time is that it is too easy otherwise to pick 1 "successful" guess out of 1000 less successful ones. For example, I can reliably "predict", how a coin falls, by making two guesses and publishing only one of them after I know the actual result.
Which is why I wrote:
Each of your two (or more) examples must contain a link to the prediction and a link to confirmation...
and then added:
the two links in each example I'd expect be themselves different and several years apart
That said, I can't help but notice, that your second example does not even claim a successful prediction! According to it, the actual data for 2012 is far outside the supposedly predicted range.
Yeah, sad... The actual iPhone case did not violate anybody's Constitutional rights, of course, but there are other questionable cases, so I shan't quibble.
But what if, seriously, doing one's job requires departing from this oath?
Don't say, it can't happen — it can. For example, you are chasing a guy, who just robbed a bank, and he gets into a car which speed of. The last thing you see him is, he pulls out a cell phone and starts dialing.
You can't catch him, but you can ask the nearby Stingray to intercept the call. Will you violate his 4th Amendment rights, or will you let him escape?
The parts of his job he is conveniently ignoring is upholding the Constitution and the civil liberties of US citizens.
Dunno, what you are talking about. FBI's mission does not contain those things you listed:
Our Mission
As an intelligence-driven and a threat-focused national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities, the mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.
Most scientific journals are out there, published and free(ish).
Why, then, are we discussing patently unscientific predictions here, onSlashdot? They all sound gloomy, but always contain the unfalsifiable "could" or "may"...
Could you answer my earlier challenge — list two (or more) scientific predictions made by climatologists between 1970 and 2011?
The entries would each contain links to a) the prediction; b) its confirmation. The linked-to pages of each entry are to be dated several years apart, and the predictions themselves must be marginally useful — something like "the temperature will fall or rise within this range" is not acceptable.
If he was not under oath, he could lie easily. If he was, however, then he probably was telling the truth — lawmen tend to take that sort of thing seriously.
But he was quite explicit about continuing to search for other methods... The man is doing his job, I would not be jeering the way you do.
I think I've seen this trick from you (or someone like you) before.
Yes, I've used this rhetorical device before.
that you wouldn't deny with semantic games and make new demands
The only "demand" I forgot to identify is that the two links in each example I'd expect be themselves different and several years apart. No "semantic games" — not even sure, what that may mean...
I doubt that there is any objective evidence in this entire universe [...]
Yes, I doubt it too. But not because my mind is so unchangeable in general, simply because AGW is bullshit.
Typically, such answers are accompanied by arguments and citations of supporting evidence... Unless, of course, you wish me to accept it on faith — like the rest of the AGW...
Next question?
Please, cite two scientific statements made by climatologists between 1970 and 2011, that made a useful prediction. Each of your two (or more) examples must contain a link to the prediction and a link to confirmation...
Of course, if you can't find such statements, we'll have to conclude, that Climatology is not really a scientific discipline and thus scientific powers of Millennials aren't, after all, related to the argument... Thank you!
Those overseas students now face being deported from the United States for buying visas
One would think, the government's priorities would be to block the poor foreigners entering the country illegally and most immediately becoming a public burden. Only after we stop importing poverty, would the borders-enforcers turn on to people, who express their love for the United States without asking taxpayers for financial assistance.
Surely, both groups are breaking the law and ought to be prosecuted, but, if you must exercise prosecutorial discretion, wouldn't you start with those, who cause the most damage? The current Administration's priorities are exactly the opposite, for some reason...
Which is quite surprising, because prosecuting these immigrants — who had the advantage of geography in coming over here — would not require the elaborate entrapment schemes like setting up fake universities — the Administration already knows many of them, and even argues in court, it ought to be allowed to let them partake in Social Security and other "earned benefits" programs!
It is almost as if the plan is to allow them all to stay — despite going through the glacially slow motions of "deferred actions" — and, while staying, vote for the party in power, huh?
Started under Bush, enhanced under Obama, and they still think there are two parties?
There are two parties. One is openly saying, we will use these nasty methods to protect the country. Weight your safety against the discomfort you feel about it, and vote for us, if you agree with us.
The other noisily denounce the very choice as "false", promises not to do anything unpleasant, gets elected based (in substantial part) on that promise, and then does it anyway. Because "it is complicated" — you bet it is, and so it was for the other guy, whom you denounced for "piping fear" and "shredding the Constitution".
Come November, be sure to vote for a Democrat so as to finally end the KKKonservative grip on the White House and restore our privacy!
“This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."
Would you plug in a USB drive that you found on the ground?
I'd insert the thing into my FreeBSD computer and explore the files looking for identity of the owner — so that I can try to return it, if possible.
If not, I'll reformat it and keep it. I suppose, it may be possible to attack me — such as by carefully exploiting some unknown vulnerability in the msdosfs.ko or but I doubt it. Not only are they unlikely to exist, even if there is something, exploiting a custom-built kernel is much more difficult than simply kidnap and torture me for secrets. It may crash, but is unlikely to do, what you want.
Maybe, you can get me through libreoffice, which I may try to use to open files identified as office documents, but even that is most unlikely — because the software is custom compiled for the specific -march and with compiler's protection against stack-smashing attacks. Again, you may succeed in crashing it, but not in obtaining anything useful.
The problem isn't that people are idiots [...] The problem is that the OS will automatically run a program
The OS is a commercial offering providing, what people pay money to have. People paying for Windows are idiots. I wouldn't voluntarily use it even if it were free...
If the cost of car battery packs goes down by a factor of 10
The cost... What about the weight and the bulk? I love the possibility to lay the rear seats flat in my gasoline-powered car — a luxury electric cars do not afford, as far as I know...
it will be very difficult to make the case for wireless charging while driving
Yes, it may turn out that way. But if, as the write-up suggests, such charging is implemented, it will come with the privacy risks I fear...
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into this subtle differences between "being" and "identifying as". For a man to "identify as" woman is just as (if not more!) delusional (or fraudulent) as for a White to identify as Black. Your "bilogical sex" makes you a man, by definition — which destines you to M-labeled bathrooms, whatever you are wearing.
it depends if you're talking about sex or gender
Nonsense. "Sex" and "gender" are interchangeable synonyms, the latter employed purely to avoid the erotic connotations of the former, when discussing things like grammar. Your attempts to differentiate between these terms may itself be symptomatic of the delusion.
Swaab and others have demonstrated sexual dimorphism in the brain
Any references to "scientific papers" can not, unfortunately, be given much credence — because of how sensitive a topic this is politically. For example, imagine that same "sexual dimorphism in the brain" argument used to justify the wage-disparity between sexes. Heck, you don't even need to imagine, just consider the fate of one L.H. Summers.
So, you are claiming, that some organs of your body disagree with others in identifying your sex (brain vs. genitalia)? Even if that were true, you are "fixing" the wrong organs... Which is, of course, your choice — just do not demand, the rest of society changes the language (and bathrooms) to accommodate it.
may someday allow roadways to charge vehicles while they are being driven
I'm fairly certain, that future technology will not allow anonymous charging. It could, but it will not — for the same gratuitous reasons you can't use and recharge a toll-paying transponder anonymously (the way you could use a phone-calling card, for example), but must associate it with both yourself and your car. (Well, New Hampshire, sort of, makes it possible to avoid providing your name, but the cars must still be listed in advance.)
As happened with electronic toll-paying, the on-the-road charging too will go from optional to mandatory. Manufacturers will reduce the battery-sizes in many models to save weight and space — and how much of a charge do you need to get from the powered highway to your home (over unpowered streets), right? Effective tracking of your car will become possible. Worse, it may also become possible to remotely disable your car by revoking your access to these chargers.
they can shoehorn the global warming agenda in under the guise of healthcare
And any disagreement is, of course, offensive, like a slap in the face, and thus equivalent to verbal assault.
Which is still an assault and therefor must be prosecuted — because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. In a few easy steps all haters can be sent to Gulag, problem solved.
I see you following (some would say stalking) my posts with remarkable regularity. But why must you be anonymous? To avoid undoing your moderations? But you just spent it all modding me down in another thread anyway...
Come out proudly, and I'll subscribe you to my newsletter...
Slashdot Mirror
This is, what, your fourth response under my post containing a challenge — and none of them contain admissible examples of the successful predictions made by climate scientists to date.
I'm unlikely to respond here again — do your homework better next time. Fail.
I'm curious why you keep posting without offering the links like I asked you to... It was not a particularly egregious request. Maybe, the information really is not as easily available as you claim it to be?.. Which would be rather strange, because IPCC and similar bodies have a vast vested interest in presenting their data in the most convincing way possible, don't they?
That Russia can use northern shipping routes for longer is not worse — it is better for them "in terms of cost". But, either way, that's just economics...
The point remains, it was not a successful prediction. And it is perfectly normal for a scientific discipline to have some failed ideas. It is when its adherents can't cite any successful ones, that one can legitimately doubt, whether it is practiced as a science at all.
Still better than your "feelings", honey...
Of course, you aren't. Because you know, you'll lose.
Delusion: an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Remember to logout.
The probable cause may help you get a warrant from a judge — but you still need a warrant. One fairly high court has already said so...
Maybe, but I doubt it. But, suppose it is a violation — would you rather the robber escaped?
Giving up already? The burden of proof is on you, remember? You want me to change my way of life, so you have to convince me...
I cited statistics. You are offering your own speculations... Not a smart move, if you are hoping to persuade anyone older than 21...
I don't know, if "worse" or "better" are applicable here. But I do know, that the prediction (if indeed there was one) failed.
And you personally are failing at the little challenge I posted...
Fail. You did not include links to predictions — only to the supposed confirmations. The reason I insist on seeing links separated by space and time is that it is too easy otherwise to pick 1 "successful" guess out of 1000 less successful ones. For example, I can reliably "predict", how a coin falls, by making two guesses and publishing only one of them after I know the actual result.
Which is why I wrote:
and then added:
That said, I can't help but notice, that your second example does not even claim a successful prediction! According to it, the actual data for 2012 is far outside the supposedly predicted range.
Yeah, sad... The actual iPhone case did not violate anybody's Constitutional rights, of course, but there are other questionable cases, so I shan't quibble.
But what if, seriously, doing one's job requires departing from this oath?
Don't say, it can't happen — it can. For example, you are chasing a guy, who just robbed a bank, and he gets into a car which speed of. The last thing you see him is, he pulls out a cell phone and starts dialing.
You can't catch him, but you can ask the nearby Stingray to intercept the call. Will you violate his 4th Amendment rights, or will you let him escape?
Dunno, what you are talking about. FBI's mission does not contain those things you listed:
Why, then, are we discussing patently unscientific predictions here, on Slashdot? They all sound gloomy, but always contain the unfalsifiable "could" or "may"...
Could you answer my earlier challenge — list two (or more) scientific predictions made by climatologists between 1970 and 2011?
The entries would each contain links to a) the prediction; b) its confirmation. The linked-to pages of each entry are to be dated several years apart, and the predictions themselves must be marginally useful — something like "the temperature will fall or rise within this range" is not acceptable.
If he was not under oath, he could lie easily. If he was, however, then he probably was telling the truth — lawmen tend to take that sort of thing seriously.
But he was quite explicit about continuing to search for other methods... The man is doing his job, I would not be jeering the way you do.
Yes, I've used this rhetorical device before.
The only "demand" I forgot to identify is that the two links in each example I'd expect be themselves different and several years apart. No "semantic games" — not even sure, what that may mean...
Yes, I doubt it too. But not because my mind is so unchangeable in general, simply because AGW is bullshit.
Typically, such answers are accompanied by arguments and citations of supporting evidence... Unless, of course, you wish me to accept it on faith — like the rest of the AGW...
Please, cite two scientific statements made by climatologists between 1970 and 2011, that made a useful prediction. Each of your two (or more) examples must contain a link to the prediction and a link to confirmation...
Of course, if you can't find such statements, we'll have to conclude, that Climatology is not really a scientific discipline and thus scientific powers of Millennials aren't, after all, related to the argument... Thank you!
Is this because Millennials are better at Science, or simply because they believe, what public school teachers told them?
One would think, the government's priorities would be to block the poor foreigners entering the country illegally and most immediately becoming a public burden. Only after we stop importing poverty, would the borders-enforcers turn on to people, who express their love for the United States without asking taxpayers for financial assistance.
Surely, both groups are breaking the law and ought to be prosecuted, but, if you must exercise prosecutorial discretion, wouldn't you start with those, who cause the most damage? The current Administration's priorities are exactly the opposite, for some reason...
Which is quite surprising, because prosecuting these immigrants — who had the advantage of geography in coming over here — would not require the elaborate entrapment schemes like setting up fake universities — the Administration already knows many of them, and even argues in court, it ought to be allowed to let them partake in Social Security and other "earned benefits" programs!
It is almost as if the plan is to allow them all to stay — despite going through the glacially slow motions of "deferred actions" — and, while staying, vote for the party in power, huh?
Of course! Because he was lying to get elected, whereas the other party was honest, even if it caused them to lose the election.
Reading is not really your thing, is it?
There are two parties. One is openly saying, we will use these nasty methods to protect the country. Weight your safety against the discomfort you feel about it, and vote for us, if you agree with us.
The other noisily denounce the very choice as "false", promises not to do anything unpleasant, gets elected based (in substantial part) on that promise, and then does it anyway. Because "it is complicated" — you bet it is, and so it was for the other guy, whom you denounced for "piping fear" and "shredding the Constitution".
Come November, be sure to vote for a Democrat so as to finally end the KKKonservative grip on the White House and restore our privacy!
Oh, wait...
(Troll my tail...)
I'd insert the thing into my FreeBSD computer and explore the files looking for identity of the owner — so that I can try to return it, if possible.
If not, I'll reformat it and keep it. I suppose, it may be possible to attack me — such as by carefully exploiting some unknown vulnerability in the msdosfs.ko or but I doubt it. Not only are they unlikely to exist, even if there is something, exploiting a custom-built kernel is much more difficult than simply kidnap and torture me for secrets. It may crash, but is unlikely to do, what you want.
Maybe, you can get me through libreoffice, which I may try to use to open files identified as office documents, but even that is most unlikely — because the software is custom compiled for the specific -march and with compiler's protection against stack-smashing attacks. Again, you may succeed in crashing it, but not in obtaining anything useful.
The OS is a commercial offering providing, what people pay money to have. People paying for Windows are idiots. I wouldn't voluntarily use it even if it were free...
The cost... What about the weight and the bulk? I love the possibility to lay the rear seats flat in my gasoline-powered car — a luxury electric cars do not afford, as far as I know...
Yes, it may turn out that way. But if, as the write-up suggests, such charging is implemented, it will come with the privacy risks I fear...
Ok, sorry, let me clarify this a bit. You are not "insane" — that's a loaded term anyway. But you do have a delusion:
(That "superior evidence", in this case, is your "biological sex".)
Either that, or, maybe, you have a lighter disorder of pseudologia fantastica.
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into this subtle differences between "being" and "identifying as". For a man to "identify as" woman is just as (if not more!) delusional (or fraudulent) as for a White to identify as Black. Your "bilogical sex" makes you a man, by definition — which destines you to M-labeled bathrooms, whatever you are wearing.
Nonsense. "Sex" and "gender" are interchangeable synonyms, the latter employed purely to avoid the erotic connotations of the former, when discussing things like grammar. Your attempts to differentiate between these terms may itself be symptomatic of the delusion.
Any references to "scientific papers" can not, unfortunately, be given much credence — because of how sensitive a topic this is politically. For example, imagine that same "sexual dimorphism in the brain" argument used to justify the wage-disparity between sexes. Heck, you don't even need to imagine, just consider the fate of one L.H. Summers.
So, you are claiming, that some organs of your body disagree with others in identifying your sex (brain vs. genitalia)? Even if that were true, you are "fixing" the wrong organs... Which is, of course, your choice — just do not demand, the rest of society changes the language (and bathrooms) to accommodate it.
This is awesome news, but there is a threat here:
I'm fairly certain, that future technology will not allow anonymous charging. It could, but it will not — for the same gratuitous reasons you can't use and recharge a toll-paying transponder anonymously (the way you could use a phone-calling card, for example), but must associate it with both yourself and your car. (Well, New Hampshire, sort of, makes it possible to avoid providing your name, but the cars must still be listed in advance.)
And it is increasingly impossible to drive in certain places without such a transponder, which is, of course, routinely used for surveillance.
As happened with electronic toll-paying, the on-the-road charging too will go from optional to mandatory. Manufacturers will reduce the battery-sizes in many models to save weight and space — and how much of a charge do you need to get from the powered highway to your home (over unpowered streets), right? Effective tracking of your car will become possible. Worse, it may also become possible to remotely disable your car by revoking your access to these chargers.
Today's concerns over license-plate readers may then appear naively quaint...
And any disagreement is, of course, offensive , like a slap in the face, and thus equivalent to verbal assault.
Which is still an assault and therefor must be prosecuted — because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. In a few easy steps all haters can be sent to Gulag, problem solved.
I see you following (some would say stalking) my posts with remarkable regularity. But why must you be anonymous? To avoid undoing your moderations? But you just spent it all modding me down in another thread anyway...
Come out proudly, and I'll subscribe you to my newsletter...