All I asked for was two (at least) pairs of links. As in:
link to prediction -> link to materialization
link to prediction -> link to materialization
And you could not do it...
As the future unfolds
That's the thing! We are living in the future of the people, who were debating these very things 10-20-30-40 years ago. Their future has already unfolded and what do we see? None of the predictions made back then have materialized — at least, nothing convincing, that you could identify in two days of Internet-searching.
So, the alarmists of the past were wrong. Does it mean, today's alarmists are wrong too? I think, it is very likely.
will find out if the scientists are generally right about this as I believe they are
There... Belief is all it is for you. Well, maybe, you should admit, that it is a faith — a religion — for you. Then the rest of us will switch to polite shrugging, rather than hurting your feelings pointing out the obvious holes in your "science"...
changes from AGW are subtle from year to year and seldom do something
So subtle, one can only believe in — rather than know about — it... And not just "from year to year" — you could not find anything convincing "from decade to decade" either. "Seldom"? How about never? If the subject matter is so "subtle", that it can not be reliably measured, and if the theories put forth can not be tested, is it even still a science?
That makes it easy for someone like you to continue to pick nits but it doesn't change the underlying reality.
Yes, "someone like me". Sorry for being scientific about it...
I don't know, if you sincerely don't understand my request, or are trying to weasel out without losing face (too much).
Here it is again: please, post pairs of links. The first link in each pair shall point to a quantifiable prediction, the second — to its materialization within 80% of the predicted quantity.
In particular I direct your attention to this graph of Arctic sea ice models vs. observations.
That chart references some predictions without links. The dramatic bold red line on it begins in 1950 — is that, when the first predictions were made? Where are they, can I read them?
But, Ok, let's stipulate the prediction really was made. Was it a scientific one — based on a decent scientific theory, or is it one of those "stalled clock" sort of thing, that happens to be correct twice a day? Two questions arise:
If it were a solid theory linking Global warming to declines in sea ice, why did sea ice grow in Antarctica during the same period? Maybe, it did not grow at quite the same rate, but the overall ice-cover decline is certainly far less dramatic, than your chart shows.
The second question is, can we trust the cited observations at all — or are they being "adjusted" to, infamously, "hide the decline"? Seems like the latter is the case — the American Thinker article linked to above is rather illuminating: the actual measurements measure area of ice-cover, but the scary charts plot the adjusted extent values, without explanation for the adjustments and their inconsistency. It does not have to be outright fraud — but such measurements are inherently imprecise. Observations are made by satellites and then need to be munged (for "quality control and homogenization") by computer algorithms. Programs, that change over the years (as do the #defines inside them) at the hands of people. People with agendas and the burning desire to convince.
So, after much back-and-forth, you were able to, sort of, cite one very questionable observation (that disappeared since then as the ice returned on both poles since 2012), that may or may not have been predicted... And you want the world to change its way of life based on that?
The citations are the IPCC reports. They're available online.
My challenge stands. Three people chose to respond (you and two ACs) — and none of you could complete, what all of you claim to be not only possible, but easy.
By this time some doubts should be (better be!) rising in your head, by the way: "Just why is it, that this jerk's taunting challenge is so hard?" Why aren't there — decades after Global Warming predictions began being made — any sad and sober told-ya-sos readily findable with Google?
For example, regular public transport to far away places so that the countryside doesn't die. That costs a lot, is valuable
Why is it valuable? Could you substantiate this claim — without calling me names?
Money isn't the measure of everything.
Indeed, money is not the measure of everything. But we are talking about prices ("fair" and otherwise) and costs — the boring things measured in money and nothing else.
that thing called critical thinking.
It would help, if you stopped talking about things you know so little about...
It's the publicly stated goal of every publicly traded company to create a monopoly like scenario where they can charge "supernormal" margins by destroying competition
Sure, each corporation wants to be the monopoly in its respective market(s).
But that's not, what I'm challenging here. Plopez above alleges, the very term "privatization" is a "code word". That adherents of it are conspiring to help such corporations. It is this allegation that remains unsubstantiated.
There might be naive idiots in congress who have bought the false premise that deregulation leads to competition
You are entitled to doubt the benefits of deregulation, but not to make bold claims like the above — not without substantiation. Can you prove, that the premise is "false"?
i do not respect you. [...] then fucking open your ignorant mouth. until then, SHUT UP. you are, objectively speaking, a moron [...] you simply do not deserve respect
So, you will be yelling names and bona-fide obscenities at me until I agree with you? What a charming and persuasive way to win friends and influence people.
In each IPCC report since the second the sea level predictions have been higher than in the previous report and yet observations continue to be higher still.
Citations? Didn't think so...
Enough for now.
You responded to a request for two or more pairs of links with exactly one and call that "enough"? Sorry, no. Fail.
Privatization is just a code word for handing a monopoly over to the private sector
That would, indeed, be bad — worse than government monopoly — if EZ-Pass is anything to go by.
But what makes you think, creation of such private monopolies is the secret goal of privatization's adherents? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, or are you just throwing unsubstantiated allegations around?
The companies often get a huge amount of goods or infrastructure for pennies on the dollar.
A "fair price" of anything is what other people are willing to pay. Taxpayers may have spent a billion dollars on it, but if $10 million is the most anybody would pay (after an honest and open bidding), then that's what it ought to cost. Yes, taxpayers were cheated — but not at the time of privatization...
There exists a class of loud, toxic morons in the USA that actually believes everything should be privatized
Exquisite! Pre-emptive ad hominem much?
(roads, police, broadband, healthcare, etc.)... there can be none [competition -mi] due to natural barriers to entry
There are no "natural barriers to entry" to medicine. Nor to Internet Service provision. Many (most?) places can have competing roads — city of Tokyo has competing subway lines. Am I a "loud toxic moron" now?
As for police, yeah, no one would want competing armed men on the same street. But that does not mean, police services can not be contracted out. Why can't a town solicit bids every 5-10 years from competing police corporations? A winning bidder would have to enforce the local laws and be bound by certain performance targets (crime prevention, citizen complaints, wrong deaths in police shootings, successful prosecutions, etc.).
All that is claimed is that AGW is a genuine and existential problem for our current society.
And that claim needs the same substantiation. In fact, for the purposes of this discussion, this claim you just made and the claim that "science is settled" are one and the same.
You claim it isn't. That claim needs as much evidence
Nope. The defense does not need to prove innocence. Prosecution must prove guilt. You (and the IPCC) want us to dramatically change our way of life — for that, you must prove, it is necessary.
You've posted your theory (twice). If the theory were valid, it should've been able — in the decades since it was first put forth — to make numerous verifiable predictions.
If it made any, you would've posted a couple of them by now — clearly, you aren't a lazy type. As things stand, you are full of, ahem, methane... Mind your excretions.
Yes well they were at war with Germany. Now the government is at war with - the people?
Who you intercept and who you actually fighting don't have to be the same people. You listen to everybody to find out, who your targets are. This is obvious to all, and the security people — who have huge leeway in interpreting laws — act to perform their mission, which is to keep us safe...
Now, are we — the rest of society — willing to trade our privacy for these gains in security? Does the freedom being surrendered qualify as essential and the gain — as temporary?
AMERICAN AND BRITISH spies hacked into the internal computer network of the largest manufacturer of SIM cards in the world, stealing encryption keys used to protect the privacy of cellphone communications across the globe
Remarkable feat! Guys from Bletchley Park — who also intercepted and decrypted everything they possibly could — would've been proud...
Sorry, I could not read such a long post — certainly not from a coward, who keeps calling me names. But I did scan it for links and found only one — so, despite multiple attempts, you keep failing to come up with even a single pair of links (one link to a prediction, the other — to its materialization).
Why, but of course, the burden of proof is on those, who make claims. If you wish for the rest of society to "fight global warming" in general, or to force patent-holders to share certain "green" technologies with the poor countries in particular, you have to show, your scientific theory is sound.
Because, whichever science it is (biology, physics, chemistry, climate), the method is the same:
Collect known facts.
Come up with a theory explaining them.
Use that theory to predict new verifiable facts in the future.
Verify the predicted facts thus confirming the predictions.
The last two steps is what I am asking for. You can not claim "science is settled" without these. We know some failed predictions, do you know any successful ones?
Let me try to repeat the request I made once again... I asked for series of pairs. The first element of each pair would be a link to a prediction — that something quantifiable will happen to climate or some aspect of Earth. The second element would point at confirmation, that the earlier prediction materialized (within, say, 80% of the predicted value). Can you offer two such pairs?
To be useful, the prediction should predate its materialization by, say, 5 years minimum...
For example, the "Sea level rise" link you offered shows seas rising somewhere by 6 centimeters over 20 years. Ok, has there been a prediction made back in 1995 about them rising by 5-7centimeters over the (then) next 20 years?
Unless you're willing to specifically name something they got wrong
When/if I see actual materialized predictions, I'll try to poke holes in them, yes... Let's see, if I succeed.
Well, two obvious ones are that sea level continues to rise and glaciers and ice sheets continue to melt.
Links, please. Not just unsubstantiated — and thus unverifiable — claims
Maybe you should be specific about what predictions you think haven't materialized.
I am unaware of anything materializing. Anything that could be perceived and objectively measured. If you are aware of any such, you are withholding evidence...
Yes, I am lazy. But you, clearly, are not. So many prompt responses, so much text typed...
And yet, the simple request for links remains unfulfilled. One must conclude, there aren't any.
What counts as a climate prediction?
Something like "By year XXXX average temperature in region X will be N". Or "... sea-levels will rise N centimeters". Or "In Y years New York City will stop experiencing snowfalls".
you're not worthy of response.
And nevertheless, you responded, what, thrice already?.. Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
Nope. You did not include a single actual link. Try again: I'm looking for 2 (minimum) pairs of links. First link of each pair needs to be to a prediction, and the second — to evidence of that prediction materializing.
The texts in each pair must be at least 5 years apart (that is, you do not "win" by predicting next day's weather).
But poor countries face a potential hurdle when it comes to clean-energy technologies—most of the relevant intellectual property is held in the rich world
Whenever you want something that others own, you "face a potential hurdle". It matters little, whether it is tangible item like bicycle, or something, that's harder to design than to manufacture (like intellectual property).
Fortunately, these particular things — unlike, say, medicines — the poor can really do without. Because the science of "climate change" — and thus the very need for "climate mitigation", that TFA asserts — is so far from "settled", that the most ardent alarmists resort to "Pascal Wager" style of argument (as they was predicted to attempt years ago).
Anybody attempting to make a retort here, is politely requested to cite (include links to) at least two past global-warming predictions, that have actually materialized...
The -current is not a release — it is the trunk of the development tree. Using for anything important — such as data, that may be worthwhile enough for your enemies to hack for — is silly. Far worse bugs may exist in -current — or be introduced at any point.
Stick to releases — or one of the -stable branches — for anything, that's not about working on FreeBSD itself.
Slashdot Mirror
All I asked for was two (at least) pairs of links. As in:
And you could not do it...
That's the thing! We are living in the future of the people, who were debating these very things 10-20-30-40 years ago. Their future has already unfolded and what do we see? None of the predictions made back then have materialized — at least, nothing convincing, that you could identify in two days of Internet-searching.
So, the alarmists of the past were wrong. Does it mean, today's alarmists are wrong too? I think, it is very likely.
There... Belief is all it is for you. Well, maybe, you should admit, that it is a faith — a religion — for you. Then the rest of us will switch to polite shrugging, rather than hurting your feelings pointing out the obvious holes in your "science"...
So subtle, one can only believe in — rather than know about — it... And not just "from year to year" — you could not find anything convincing "from decade to decade" either. "Seldom"? How about never? If the subject matter is so "subtle", that it can not be reliably measured, and if the theories put forth can not be tested, is it even still a science?
Yes, "someone like me". Sorry for being scientific about it...
Yep. You convinced me. One of us is a loud toxic moron...
I don't know, if you sincerely don't understand my request, or are trying to weasel out without losing face (too much).
Here it is again: please, post pairs of links. The first link in each pair shall point to a quantifiable prediction, the second — to its materialization within 80% of the predicted quantity.
That chart references some predictions without links. The dramatic bold red line on it begins in 1950 — is that, when the first predictions were made? Where are they, can I read them?
But, Ok, let's stipulate the prediction really was made. Was it a scientific one — based on a decent scientific theory, or is it one of those "stalled clock" sort of thing, that happens to be correct twice a day? Two questions arise:
So, after much back-and-forth, you were able to, sort of, cite one very questionable observation (that disappeared since then as the ice returned on both poles since 2012), that may or may not have been predicted... And you want the world to change its way of life based on that?
I think, it was enough to introduce it into the air-ventilation system...
What could possibly go wrong?
Because you chose to respond to my challenge.
My challenge stands. Three people chose to respond (you and two ACs) — and none of you could complete, what all of you claim to be not only possible, but easy.
By this time some doubts should be (better be!) rising in your head, by the way: "Just why is it, that this jerk's taunting challenge is so hard?" Why aren't there — decades after Global Warming predictions began being made — any sad and sober told-ya-sos readily findable with Google?
Why is it valuable? Could you substantiate this claim — without calling me names?
Indeed, money is not the measure of everything. But we are talking about prices ("fair" and otherwise) and costs — the boring things measured in money and nothing else.
It would help, if you stopped talking about things you know so little about...
Sure, each corporation wants to be the monopoly in its respective market(s).
But that's not, what I'm challenging here. Plopez above alleges, the very term "privatization" is a "code word". That adherents of it are conspiring to help such corporations. It is this allegation that remains unsubstantiated.
You are entitled to doubt the benefits of deregulation, but not to make bold claims like the above — not without substantiation. Can you prove, that the premise is "false"?
Your turn now. "Natural monopoly" is a myth.
So, you will be yelling names and bona-fide obscenities at me until I agree with you? What a charming and persuasive way to win friends and influence people.
I think, we are done here. Thank you.
Citations? Didn't think so...
You responded to a request for two or more pairs of links with exactly one and call that "enough"? Sorry, no. Fail.
That would, indeed, be bad — worse than government monopoly — if EZ-Pass is anything to go by.
But what makes you think, creation of such private monopolies is the secret goal of privatization's adherents? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, or are you just throwing unsubstantiated allegations around?
A "fair price" of anything is what other people are willing to pay. Taxpayers may have spent a billion dollars on it, but if $10 million is the most anybody would pay (after an honest and open bidding), then that's what it ought to cost. Yes, taxpayers were cheated — but not at the time of privatization...
Exquisite! Pre-emptive ad hominem much?
There are no "natural barriers to entry" to medicine. Nor to Internet Service provision. Many (most?) places can have competing roads — city of Tokyo has competing subway lines. Am I a "loud toxic moron" now?
As for police, yeah, no one would want competing armed men on the same street. But that does not mean, police services can not be contracted out. Why can't a town solicit bids every 5-10 years from competing police corporations? A winning bidder would have to enforce the local laws and be bound by certain performance targets (crime prevention, citizen complaints, wrong deaths in police shootings, successful prosecutions, etc.).
And that claim needs the same substantiation. In fact, for the purposes of this discussion, this claim you just made and the claim that "science is settled" are one and the same.
Nope. The defense does not need to prove innocence. Prosecution must prove guilt. You (and the IPCC) want us to dramatically change our way of life — for that, you must prove, it is necessary.
You've posted your theory (twice). If the theory were valid, it should've been able — in the decades since it was first put forth — to make numerous verifiable predictions.
If it made any, you would've posted a couple of them by now — clearly, you aren't a lazy type. As things stand, you are full of, ahem, methane... Mind your excretions.
Who you intercept and who you actually fighting don't have to be the same people. You listen to everybody to find out, who your targets are. This is obvious to all, and the security people — who have huge leeway in interpreting laws — act to perform their mission, which is to keep us safe...
Now, are we — the rest of society — willing to trade our privacy for these gains in security? Does the freedom being surrendered qualify as essential and the gain — as temporary?
Remarkable feat! Guys from Bletchley Park — who also intercepted and decrypted everything they possibly could — would've been proud...
It is acceptable for me, because I make no claims (such as that climate science is "settled").
Those making claims bear the burden of proof. The burden, which is, obviously, too hard for you. Fail.
Sorry, I could not read such a long post — certainly not from a coward, who keeps calling me names. But I did scan it for links and found only one — so, despite multiple attempts, you keep failing to come up with even a single pair of links (one link to a prediction, the other — to its materialization).
Done what? Where are the pairs of links I keep asking for?
Why, but of course, the burden of proof is on those, who make claims. If you wish for the rest of society to "fight global warming" in general, or to force patent-holders to share certain "green" technologies with the poor countries in particular, you have to show, your scientific theory is sound.
Because, whichever science it is (biology, physics, chemistry, climate), the method is the same:
The last two steps is what I am asking for. You can not claim "science is settled" without these. We know some failed predictions, do you know any successful ones?
Let me try to repeat the request I made once again... I asked for series of pairs. The first element of each pair would be a link to a prediction — that something quantifiable will happen to climate or some aspect of Earth. The second element would point at confirmation, that the earlier prediction materialized (within, say, 80% of the predicted value). Can you offer two such pairs?
To be useful, the prediction should predate its materialization by, say, 5 years minimum...
For example, the "Sea level rise" link you offered shows seas rising somewhere by 6 centimeters over 20 years. Ok, has there been a prediction made back in 1995 about them rising by 5-7centimeters over the (then) next 20 years?
When/if I see actual materialized predictions, I'll try to poke holes in them, yes... Let's see, if I succeed.
Links, please. Not just unsubstantiated — and thus unverifiable — claims
I am unaware of anything materializing. Anything that could be perceived and objectively measured. If you are aware of any such, you are withholding evidence...
Yes, I am lazy. But you, clearly, are not. So many prompt responses, so much text typed...
And yet, the simple request for links remains unfulfilled. One must conclude, there aren't any.
Something like "By year XXXX average temperature in region X will be N". Or "... sea-levels will rise N centimeters". Or "In Y years New York City will stop experiencing snowfalls".
And nevertheless, you responded, what, thrice already?.. Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
In other words, fail.
Better luck next time.
Nope. You did not include a single actual link. Try again: I'm looking for 2 (minimum) pairs of links. First link of each pair needs to be to a prediction, and the second — to evidence of that prediction materializing.
The texts in each pair must be at least 5 years apart (that is, you do not "win" by predicting next day's weather).
Whenever you want something that others own, you "face a potential hurdle". It matters little, whether it is tangible item like bicycle, or something, that's harder to design than to manufacture (like intellectual property).
Fortunately, these particular things — unlike, say, medicines — the poor can really do without. Because the science of "climate change" — and thus the very need for "climate mitigation", that TFA asserts — is so far from "settled", that the most ardent alarmists resort to "Pascal Wager" style of argument (as they was predicted to attempt years ago).
Anybody attempting to make a retort here, is politely requested to cite (include links to) at least two past global-warming predictions, that have actually materialized...
The -current is not a release — it is the trunk of the development tree. Using for anything important — such as data, that may be worthwhile enough for your enemies to hack for — is silly. Far worse bugs may exist in -current — or be introduced at any point.
Stick to releases — or one of the -stable branches — for anything, that's not about working on FreeBSD itself.