Yes, but as well as leaving a budget surplus Clinton also set in motion the kind of sub-prime lending that led to the crash, so you know, if you're going to argue democrat v republican, I would be more circumspect.
Well, I don't know what the theory is and to be honest, I'm not sure I'm entitled to an opinion being from the UK, not the US. It's up to you how you run your government. But it seems to me that whatever you're doing at the moment cannot be sustained indefinitely. Someone, at some point, has to start cutting.
Well, looking at the US deficit and debt, one could argue that the Tea Party might be loonies but at least it isn't their policy to spend their grandchildren's earnings.
You have no evidence whatsoever the Earth's climate is governed by exponentials. Indeed all of the evidence is to the contrary. But don't let that dissuade you from making a comment.
Again, you're misrepresenting the science by taking the most extreme position and using that as your basis for action.
When did the conventional value judgement applied to temperature become reversed? Higher temperature has almost always been associated with well-being, increased productivity (agricultural) and increased prosperity (MWP, Roman Optimum and so on). Yet somehow over the last 20 years, the NGOs and activists (that includes activist scientists) have switched it around. Now increased warming is associated with death and destruction. Well, it is if you're asserting temperatures will increase by 10C. But the IPCC aren't. They've changed their prediction from 1-4.5C to 2C. With the margin of error in their working, that would include 0C.
So my question to you is where you got the idea that all life on the planet will die? It certainly isn't in the IPCC report. Indeed they've glossed over the failures of their previous predictions (hurricane activity at an all-time low, they predicted it would be at an all-time high, sea level increasing over centuries trend, not accelerating and so on).
What is it in your psychology that causes you to hold onto your belief and agree with the alarmism of the IPCC even though it's every past prediction has turned out to be nonsense?
I think the law of unintended consequences might trip you over there. For example, "we need energy security" became "we need ethanol" which became "we've reduced global grain supply by 5% and forced up food prices". What an absolutely terrible policy. The best thing for government to do is almost always absolutely nothing.
Funny. The IPCC puts its certainty at 95%, which is somewhat confusing as it's unable to show any accounting for that figure. According to Professor Judith Curry, the figure is arrived at by getting a load of climate scientists into a room and asking them what their certainty is!
What did my physics professor always say? If you don't know how accurate your measurement is, you haven't made a measurement.
It gets worse. The discrepancy between models and actual reality continues to grow. Surely this makes the science more uncertain, not less. Yet somehow the IPCC find themselves increasingly confident that they're right, even as everybody else becomes increasingly confident that the models they use are wrong. The whole thing is an absolute farce.
The BBC is excruciatingly, almost absurdly careful about producing unbiased coverage
I'm afraid you're absurdly wrong on that. It bends over backwards to say how impartial it is, but in reality most of its employees are drawn from the pages of the left wing Guardian, as are most of its editorial decisions.
You know the channels I most often find something worth watching aren't BBC or ITV, they're Dave, Discovery Channel, Sky. The BBC doesn't get a look in, except it's radio output (4 and sometimes 5-live).
That does not follow, no. You can say that looks like it was designed, but that assertion is content free because what it looks like to be designed is normative; there's no law of what it looks like to be designed.
On a base level what you're doing when you do that is asserting that one thing looks or behaves like another that was designed. It tells you nothing about whether or not it was actually designed. All evolution will say about it is that the designed hypothesis is much more complex an axiom than the evolved hypothesis, therefore the evolved hypothesis is more likely (Occam's Razor). For it to be designed, a thing of much greater complexity capable of designing it must be introduced. If you're going to introduce entities like that, then there's absolutely no regularity at all.
The Olympics were an exception. That's precisely the kind of coverage you'd want a broadcaster to provide. But even there they've screwed up. Their deal with the IOC meant they've taken down their online event archive. I can't watch it over again. I paid for it, twice, with my licence fee and my taxes, and now I can't watch it because of IOC licencing? Disgusting.
Radio 4 is actually excellent, but it's niche. BBC television has a few gems that have been dumbed down over the last 10 years (someone mentioned Horizon and Panorama, which used to be good, not so much now). Other than that it's just the usual rubbish indistinguishable from commercial channels.
I disagree. We now have science by press release and those press releases often hype, make unsupportable claims or flat out contradict last week's press release (themselves contradicted by next week's). The public don't read journals, on the whole. To me a lot of science publication is simply fishing for the next grant from the government.
Oh, I see what happened here. You replied to kid zero. When I clicked the link it looked like you were replying to me. I have no idea how that happened.
How would I go about falsifying such an assertion?
Well, how would you go about verifying that all swans are white? In practice you can't enumerate them all, so what you do is say to yourself, this is my hypothesis, my organising principle or my theory, all swans are white. When you find a black one, as you surely will if you ever visit Australia, then you will have to throw your theory away and come up with another.
With Evolution, one can say it's an organising principle for the whole of biology, until its equivalent of a black swan shows up. Personally, I don't believe biology will discover a black swan. When people have pointed one out before, it's always turned out to actually be white (irreducible complexity of certain biological structures, for example).
Slashdot Mirror
The government sets the framework. People within it then do their best (or their worst, in this case mostly their worst).
Yes, but as well as leaving a budget surplus Clinton also set in motion the kind of sub-prime lending that led to the crash, so you know, if you're going to argue democrat v republican, I would be more circumspect.
Well, I don't know what the theory is and to be honest, I'm not sure I'm entitled to an opinion being from the UK, not the US. It's up to you how you run your government. But it seems to me that whatever you're doing at the moment cannot be sustained indefinitely. Someone, at some point, has to start cutting.
Well, looking at the US deficit and debt, one could argue that the Tea Party might be loonies but at least it isn't their policy to spend their grandchildren's earnings.
CO2 isn't pollution. You'd like to think it was, but it isn't. It's a vital plant nutrient.
You have no evidence whatsoever the Earth's climate is governed by exponentials. Indeed all of the evidence is to the contrary. But don't let that dissuade you from making a comment.
You come with no actual arguments, much like the IPCC.
Again, you're misrepresenting the science by taking the most extreme position and using that as your basis for action.
When did the conventional value judgement applied to temperature become reversed? Higher temperature has almost always been associated with well-being, increased productivity (agricultural) and increased prosperity (MWP, Roman Optimum and so on). Yet somehow over the last 20 years, the NGOs and activists (that includes activist scientists) have switched it around. Now increased warming is associated with death and destruction. Well, it is if you're asserting temperatures will increase by 10C. But the IPCC aren't. They've changed their prediction from 1-4.5C to 2C. With the margin of error in their working, that would include 0C.
So my question to you is where you got the idea that all life on the planet will die? It certainly isn't in the IPCC report. Indeed they've glossed over the failures of their previous predictions (hurricane activity at an all-time low, they predicted it would be at an all-time high, sea level increasing over centuries trend, not accelerating and so on).
What is it in your psychology that causes you to hold onto your belief and agree with the alarmism of the IPCC even though it's every past prediction has turned out to be nonsense?
A false dichotomy straight from the alarmist playbook.
I think if you study the analysis at Lucia's and also Steve McIntrye's, you'll understand why it must be so.
I think the law of unintended consequences might trip you over there. For example, "we need energy security" became "we need ethanol" which became "we've reduced global grain supply by 5% and forced up food prices". What an absolutely terrible policy. The best thing for government to do is almost always absolutely nothing.
It's not ready yet. Thorium perhaps in time.
Funny. The IPCC puts its certainty at 95%, which is somewhat confusing as it's unable to show any accounting for that figure. According to Professor Judith Curry, the figure is arrived at by getting a load of climate scientists into a room and asking them what their certainty is!
What did my physics professor always say? If you don't know how accurate your measurement is, you haven't made a measurement.
It gets worse. The discrepancy between models and actual reality continues to grow. Surely this makes the science more uncertain, not less. Yet somehow the IPCC find themselves increasingly confident that they're right, even as everybody else becomes increasingly confident that the models they use are wrong. The whole thing is an absolute farce.
Not the whole thing, no. The BBC could have made a deal with the IOC, which would certainly have had government backing.
I'm afraid you're absurdly wrong on that. It bends over backwards to say how impartial it is, but in reality most of its employees are drawn from the pages of the left wing Guardian, as are most of its editorial decisions.
Well yes, apart from Israel good. Their news coverage is hilariously biased in favour of the Palestinians and against Israel.
You know the channels I most often find something worth watching aren't BBC or ITV, they're Dave, Discovery Channel, Sky. The BBC doesn't get a look in, except it's radio output (4 and sometimes 5-live).
That does not follow, no. You can say that looks like it was designed, but that assertion is content free because what it looks like to be designed is normative; there's no law of what it looks like to be designed.
On a base level what you're doing when you do that is asserting that one thing looks or behaves like another that was designed. It tells you nothing about whether or not it was actually designed. All evolution will say about it is that the designed hypothesis is much more complex an axiom than the evolved hypothesis, therefore the evolved hypothesis is more likely (Occam's Razor). For it to be designed, a thing of much greater complexity capable of designing it must be introduced. If you're going to introduce entities like that, then there's absolutely no regularity at all.
The Olympics were an exception. That's precisely the kind of coverage you'd want a broadcaster to provide. But even there they've screwed up. Their deal with the IOC meant they've taken down their online event archive. I can't watch it over again. I paid for it, twice, with my licence fee and my taxes, and now I can't watch it because of IOC licencing? Disgusting.
Radio 4 is actually excellent, but it's niche. BBC television has a few gems that have been dumbed down over the last 10 years (someone mentioned Horizon and Panorama, which used to be good, not so much now). Other than that it's just the usual rubbish indistinguishable from commercial channels.
The BBC is pretty much wall-to-wall reality TV these days. They're funded by taxes; they shouldn't be competing with commercial channels at all.
I disagree. We now have science by press release and those press releases often hype, make unsupportable claims or flat out contradict last week's press release (themselves contradicted by next week's). The public don't read journals, on the whole. To me a lot of science publication is simply fishing for the next grant from the government.
Oh, I see what happened here. You replied to kid zero. When I clicked the link it looked like you were replying to me. I have no idea how that happened.
My apologies.
I said no such thing. Please quote me or shut up. Also, I have one account on here.
Well, how would you go about verifying that all swans are white? In practice you can't enumerate them all, so what you do is say to yourself, this is my hypothesis, my organising principle or my theory, all swans are white. When you find a black one, as you surely will if you ever visit Australia, then you will have to throw your theory away and come up with another.
With Evolution, one can say it's an organising principle for the whole of biology, until its equivalent of a black swan shows up. Personally, I don't believe biology will discover a black swan. When people have pointed one out before, it's always turned out to actually be white (irreducible complexity of certain biological structures, for example).