Well known skeptic or not, the author in question directly contradicted the abstract of the results for his own study. It's right there for us to read and we can easily verifiy that his statement to your site was false according to the abstract of his study. So either the abstract is wrong and the author made a msitake in his paper or the author is wrong about his own paper, neither situation bodes well for the criticism. It's been known to happen, particular among so-called "skeptic" scientists where their public posturing is frequently different from their scientific results, possibly because their co-authors are less biased or they know their actual results will be rigorously reviewed unlike comments delivered to a blog of no particular noteworthiness.
A quick review of your site show it to be "politically independent" much like Fox News is "Fair and Balanced".
You're linking back to the same site, with the same problems.
The first "peer reviewed rebuttal" listed there is a complaint that Science refused to publish a letter that claimed that one of the studies was wrong. That certainly convinced me. I mean, a letter that wasn't ever published? What could it be more devastating? If they're starting with the strongest evidence, I am seriously under whelmed.
The second one is from Energy & Environment the editor of whom has admitted that she picks articles to further her political goals (which include opposing environment groups and activity).
Several of the papers listed in the linked blog post are from the exact same people who complained about the Cook paper in the previous link you posted.
The remaining are nit-picking papers complaining about how this or that metric used to measure expertise is not perfectly accurate.
First of all, they're posted on "Watts Up With That?" and that's never a good place to start.
The central problem with "no global warming since 1997" is that 1998 was an unusually warm year due to an unusually strong El Nino effect (which started in 1997). When you start your trend line with exceptional data, you will always get garbage results and it doesn't matter what trend you're trying to measure. Interestingly enough the years 2005, 2010 and now 2014 are all warmer than 1998 and none of them feature a strong El Nino like we saw in 1998. Since a strong El Nino will raise global atmospheric temperatures by around 0.5 degrees, that means we have definitely seen warming when the year-to-year noise of ENSO (El Nino and La Nina) effects are accounted for. There's also the little tidbit that 1998 is only year in the top 10 warmest years that not in this century, which makes the "no warming since 1998" seem a bit bogus, doesn't it?
You don't have to take my word for it, though you can read more about it, if you want.
Wow. A biased, conservative, science-denying site says the paper is unreliable, imagine that. The paper hasn't been demonstrated to be fraudulent, it's been claimed to be fraudulent by some guy writing for a web site. He's managed to find a whole 7 people who disagree with the classification of their papers. 7 out of 11,944, clearly an error rate of 0.05% is unacceptable.
I should note that at least one of the disagreements was erroneous, the abstract from the author's paper directly contradicts the author's claim and supports the categorisation given to by the Cook study. And another claims that the referees made him take out the unjustified conclusions that he wanted to include that would have made the paper less supportive of AGW, if only his conclusions could have been justified with actual science. Of course, those errors mean that the author of the blog post denying the Cook paper has at least a 28% error rate, but clearly that's acceptable when it's supporting your particular views.
I'm not anti-nuclear, but requiring other people to agree to your solution before you'll admit the problem exists is pretty pathetic bullshit.
How about we agree there's a problem and then start determining what the best solution will be? I'm pretty sure it will include nuclear power, so there's no reason to be an asshole about it.
You will find plenty in each of those fields who have written papers on each side of the debate.
Actually, you won't. 97% of the papers that took a position on global warming between 1991 and 2011 support it. Out the 11,944 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mention climate change or global warming, only 83 rejected the central premises of AGW, while 3894 supported the premise (the remaining 7967 mentioned climate change or global warming but did not expressly support or deny it). So if you consider 0.7% to be "plenty", then I question your mathematical abilities.
Skeptical Science is neither. It is a propaganda website, run by the innermost clique of fraudsters accused of manipulating data, "hiding the decline", and suppressing all dissenting evidence.
Actually, that's just wrong. Skeptical science was started by a cartoonist, and the people involved there are mostly not climate scientists, so your first claim is obviously false.
Of course they publish work that supports their own opinions.
The link from above is merely an explanation of why the claim that warming stopped in 1998 is wrong with actual links to the peer reviewed science to back up the facts used in the explanation.
Those idiots actually still support Mann's Hockey Stick - what may be one of the most thoroughly disproven claims in modern science.
Actually, it may surprise you but is has not been disproven at all. In fact, "[m]ore than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph".
It's be more remarkable if Skeptical Science ever admitted to error, or allowed dissent.
If have seen both, what they don't allow is people to post demonstrably false information, go off topic or dip into personal insults.
The fact is that every single climate model predicted major increases in temperature that have not occurred. Yet somehow these models are still supposed to be correct?
The "corruption" angle of this is far more pervasive than just games or game reviews.
As far as I can tell, GamerGate claims to be about gaming journalism ethics and not any media that matters in any significant way.
It was an interesting coincidence that a Jewish reporter in Israel was complaining about media corruption from a different angle when this story was being broken.
No, it really isn't.
Her perspective was that inconvenient facts and stories are not published. Things that don't support the dogma that your editors want to push are suppressed.
You must be either be clueless or a teenager, if you didn't already know that. It's the most prevalent side effect of the commercialization of the news media. I think Slashdot even covered at least one such scandal in the mainstream media and that was many years ago. In that case, a Fox channel in Florida fired two reporters who refused to edit out parts of their news story that were critical of an advertiser (Monsanto). They sued Fox for wrongful dismissal, but lost the case because the courts ruled that Fox had no duty to tell it's audience the truth.
I'm not sure if it's shared ideology driven by the state of journalism academia or if it's mainly more crass corporate considerations but there's a definite group think at work.
I don't think it journalism academia, they despair for the state of the news media. I think it's simply the corruption of mixing profit-seeking in with the activities that are supposed to create the informed electorate. When the news is bought and paid for by the very same people the news is supposed to investigate, is it any wonder that there is corruption? In America, the government can manipulate the media by simply threatening to take actions that will reduce the profits of the news organization unless they carry the news the government wants them to carry. Because the news is a profit center, it's rasy for the government to manipulate these corporations by such simple means as denying access to media scrums or government officials. Things that won't get the average citizen riled up, but could cost the news organization ratings and thus money. Additionally, it's easy for the news corporation to be manipulated by their sponsors because all the sponsor has to do is threaten to move their advertising to a competitor to lobby for certain stories to be softballed. Even worse as time goes by and these tactics are more common, the news organizations learn to take these actions without even be prompted.
Professional journalism at this point can be at best described as a form of political propaganda.
In many ways the words "at this point" make that sentence less true. The term yellow journalism was coined in the 1890s, after all. The corruption of the news media waxes and wanes with the regulation imposed on it. That regulation is pretty loose right now in the name of free speech, which necessarily leaves a lot of room for corruption. There are worse things, for instance, most of the Russian media is pretty much owned by the Russian government so they repeat uncritically everything they are told to repeat which leads to worse media and worse governance.
Unfortunately, I really have no idea how you would go about making the news media less corrupt, other than maybe banning anything that claims to be news from accepting any sponsorship. If they aren't beholden to make a certain amount of profit for the sponsoring organization it becomes much more difficult to manipulate the editors, and through them the reporters.
He's not talking about that kind of disparity. The disparity he's talking about is the gap between the fortunes of the "rich" and the "poor". Wealth is accumulating rapidly on the "rich" side of the scale and we're not even sure if the "poor" side is accumulating anything. Now the rich will always have it better than the poor, so the real question is does it matter if the rich are one thousand, one million, on billion, or one trillion times better off than the poor? It seems to me the evidence, so far, indicates that the larger that gap, the worse off our society as a whole is. At furthest extreme it becomes easy for individuals to buy the votes to get the legislation which protects their interests passed. If you think that's already a problem, that might be an indication that the current inequality is already exceeding a reasonable threshold.
As far as I know, it isn't illegal to ride a horse (or drive a horse and buggy) on most roads (the exception being high-speed closed access roads like highways and interstates) in most countries. I suspect in 50 years time driving your own car will be considered a lot like horse riding or driving a buggy is today. It probably won't be illegal, just very expensive and thus out of reach for the majority of people.
How can NASA spend their budget effeciently when congressional representatives decide what they are allowed and required to work on? In this case a Republican Senator (Roger Wicker from Mississippi) amended the funding bill to require them to finish building it.
Actually, with James Inhofe in charge of the Senate committe on commerce sceince and transportation, it might be the case that anything science-related or any actual accomplishments in space is a defect of the intended process of funnelling vital money to the people who fund senatorial re-election campaigns.
In this case the "poison pill" was Republican Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi who attached an ammendment to NASA's funding bill requiring them to finish constructing the tower.
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. They're directly helping you and you're indirectly hurting people? They're injecting you with an inactive harmless version of the disease that will protect you, while you're infecting other people with an active harmful version of the disease that may kill them. In either case, the sanctity of someone's body is being violated and it seems to me that what you're doing is worse in every way that matters. Therefore, if they deserve death, you deserve it more.
Also what's your stand on inhalable vaccines? If you're not injected, but instead required to breath in the vaccine does that make a difference to you? Are you still allowed to murder people for violating your body or is it hunky-dory because it's not "piercing someone else's skin"?
There is no way in hell that any government is going to demand that I stick anything into my body, let alone my child's body. And, if anyone were to try to pierce my skin, or the skin of my loved one, self-defense will cover my tearing them limb from limb.
Am I allowed to pre-emptively kill you and your unvaccinated disease-machine children before you infect me and mine? I really want to know, because according to your philosophy, "self-defence will cover tearing [you] limb from limb" afterwards, but I'd rather do it before I get sick.
But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.
That works as long as you're not infectious. However, as soon as you become ill you are now violating those rights for everyone you come into contact with. You might think you would just avoid other people while you're sick, however, some diseases like the mumps (The second M in MMR), are infectious for days or weeks before you show symptoms.
If we take the road your propose what is your responsbility to those who died because of your choice? Do you owe their families a life time of financial support for the victims of your pathogens?
Libertarianism eventually boils down to "Fuck you, I've got mine and your taxes are going to help me keep it."
After all, the primary things that libertarians actually think taxes should be used for are police and armies, which both happen to be useful in protecting their property from other people. Effectively, they're just too cheap to pay their own way, even when it comes to protecting their own property.
You want ties to industry? How about cap and trade being written by the same geniuses that gave us credit default swaps [nakedcapitalism.com]? At the end of the day you can wave whatever flag you want because the only "solutions" being pushed are nothing but a reverse robin hood scam [youtube.com] where the actual polluters get carbon "indulgences" while those that can't afford to offshore their wealth get royally fucked in the ass to benefit the 1%...surprise surprise, the rich getting richer by stealing what few cents out of each dollar they don't already hoard.
You're American. Everything your country does is part of "a reverse robin hood scam".
Yes, it has. Globally every year since 1990 has been warmer than 1936.
Its been a long time since Canadian border states had temps at 121 degrees Fahrenheit.
Actually, that would be Steele city in North Dakota on July 6th, 1936. No other Canadian border state has ever recorded a temperature of 121 F. Also note that North Dakota and south Dakota both recorded record lows of -60 F and -58 F in 1936. However, as previously pointed out, North America is about 4.8% of the world's surface and around 16.5% of the land area A record-shattering warm year in the U.S. might be barely noticable in the global record. On average, the 2000-2010 decade was 0.5 C warmer than the 1930-1940 decade. Which means for 1936 to lift the global average, the average temperature in North America would have be 10 C above average for the entire year, if the rest of the world was experiencing merely average temperatures for the decade.
It would also be nice if there were no more snow exactly like the Hadley Climate Research Center said in the year 2000: "We have in all likelihood seen our last snowfall. Snow would become a rare and exciting event. Children would grow up not knowing what snow looked like." Who says all that tax money given to them was a waste?
That's not an accurate quote. Even the quote you gave contradicts itself. It's also important to note that he was talking about 20 years from when he said that, and if you check your calendar you might note that it's not 2020 yet. Additionally, I'd bet he actually said "if the current trends continue" but it was dropped from the quote in the article because it wasn't pithy enough with the qualifier. Of course, we have seen a reduction in the rate of warming in surface air temperatures since 2000 so it may take longer to get there than he predicted, but the world has continued to warm, so it may still come to pass that England sees very little snow.
Organized effort is not part of the definition. Irrelevant objection. Is there a concept of "Social Justice"? Yes/No. Are there people who fight for that concept of Social Justice? Yes/No. An individual fighting for Social Justice is a Social Justice Warrior. He doesn't have to be part of a group to be an SJW. Whether all SJWs are perfectly agreed on every ideological point is also irrelevant. There's a general trend that can be described.
You just changed the definition of Social Justice Warrior (SJW). This is different from the definition you previously gave me, which is exactly my point: SJW is a label applied to people with a different political alignment than you and you project whatever flaws are convenient to make you right and them wrong onto them. It's too bad you aren't self-aware enough to see that you're doing it while you protest that you are not.
But if I label the group of people who steal property, "thieves", is this mere projection? Have the actions not fulfilled the very definition of "thief"?
Is "thief" an identity? I say you're projecting an identity on a group of people you label as SJWs because I don't know if the group you think exists actually exists in any cohesive manner. Also, it's a bit like "racists" or "misogynists", most of the people you would put in the group probably wouldn't think they belong there. Often, I suspect the term is used to identify "people who have called me racist or sexist". I also suspect that more often than not the person has been called on their attitude multiple times and believes that since it's happened so often, the person choose to believe that there must be a conspiracy to silence them, rather than accepting that their beliefs or attitude is genuinely disliked for valid reasons by the people around them.
Are there or are there not a group of people who go around using "misogyny", "sexist", "racist", and other charged adjectives to police public behavior?
As far as I know there is not. There are people who use the terms too freely, but as far as I know, they are not part of any organised effort to police public behaviour.
Labeling the people who fight for "Social Justice", Social Justice Warriors, seems quite apt. Change the name to anything else, people will still hate the group, because they hate the actions of the group, not the label of the group.
I'm not arguing that the term needs to be changed. After all, what would be the point? I'm saying it is already effectively meaningless, much the way conservative talking heads have made liberal and progressive meaningless by ascribing it to virtually everything they don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
Well known skeptic or not, the author in question directly contradicted the abstract of the results for his own study. It's right there for us to read and we can easily verifiy that his statement to your site was false according to the abstract of his study. So either the abstract is wrong and the author made a msitake in his paper or the author is wrong about his own paper, neither situation bodes well for the criticism. It's been known to happen, particular among so-called "skeptic" scientists where their public posturing is frequently different from their scientific results, possibly because their co-authors are less biased or they know their actual results will be rigorously reviewed unlike comments delivered to a blog of no particular noteworthiness.
A quick review of your site show it to be "politically independent" much like Fox News is "Fair and Balanced".
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
You're linking back to the same site, with the same problems.
The first "peer reviewed rebuttal" listed there is a complaint that Science refused to publish a letter that claimed that one of the studies was wrong. That certainly convinced me. I mean, a letter that wasn't ever published? What could it be more devastating? If they're starting with the strongest evidence, I am seriously under whelmed.
The second one is from Energy & Environment the editor of whom has admitted that she picks articles to further her political goals (which include opposing environment groups and activity).
Several of the papers listed in the linked blog post are from the exact same people who complained about the Cook paper in the previous link you posted.
The remaining are nit-picking papers complaining about how this or that metric used to measure expertise is not perfectly accurate.
Over billed and underwhelming, as usual.
First of all, they're posted on "Watts Up With That?" and that's never a good place to start.
The central problem with "no global warming since 1997" is that 1998 was an unusually warm year due to an unusually strong El Nino effect (which started in 1997). When you start your trend line with exceptional data, you will always get garbage results and it doesn't matter what trend you're trying to measure. Interestingly enough the years 2005, 2010 and now 2014 are all warmer than 1998 and none of them feature a strong El Nino like we saw in 1998. Since a strong El Nino will raise global atmospheric temperatures by around 0.5 degrees, that means we have definitely seen warming when the year-to-year noise of ENSO (El Nino and La Nina) effects are accounted for. There's also the little tidbit that 1998 is only year in the top 10 warmest years that not in this century, which makes the "no warming since 1998" seem a bit bogus, doesn't it?
You don't have to take my word for it, though you can read more about it, if you want.
Wow. A biased, conservative, science-denying site says the paper is unreliable, imagine that. The paper hasn't been demonstrated to be fraudulent, it's been claimed to be fraudulent by some guy writing for a web site. He's managed to find a whole 7 people who disagree with the classification of their papers. 7 out of 11,944, clearly an error rate of 0.05% is unacceptable.
I should note that at least one of the disagreements was erroneous, the abstract from the author's paper directly contradicts the author's claim and supports the categorisation given to by the Cook study. And another claims that the referees made him take out the unjustified conclusions that he wanted to include that would have made the paper less supportive of AGW, if only his conclusions could have been justified with actual science. Of course, those errors mean that the author of the blog post denying the Cook paper has at least a 28% error rate, but clearly that's acceptable when it's supporting your particular views.
I'm not anti-nuclear, but requiring other people to agree to your solution before you'll admit the problem exists is pretty pathetic bullshit.
How about we agree there's a problem and then start determining what the best solution will be? I'm pretty sure it will include nuclear power, so there's no reason to be an asshole about it.
You will find plenty in each of those fields who have written papers on each side of the debate.
Actually, you won't. 97% of the papers that took a position on global warming between 1991 and 2011 support it. Out the 11,944 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mention climate change or global warming, only 83 rejected the central premises of AGW, while 3894 supported the premise (the remaining 7967 mentioned climate change or global warming but did not expressly support or deny it). So if you consider 0.7% to be "plenty", then I question your mathematical abilities.
Skeptical Science is neither. It is a propaganda website, run by the innermost clique of fraudsters accused of manipulating data, "hiding the decline", and suppressing all dissenting evidence.
Actually, that's just wrong. Skeptical science was started by a cartoonist, and the people involved there are mostly not climate scientists, so your first claim is obviously false.
Of course they publish work that supports their own opinions.
The link from above is merely an explanation of why the claim that warming stopped in 1998 is wrong with actual links to the peer reviewed science to back up the facts used in the explanation.
Those idiots actually still support Mann's Hockey Stick - what may be one of the most thoroughly disproven claims in modern science.
Actually, it may surprise you but is has not been disproven at all. In fact, "[m]ore than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph".
It's be more remarkable if Skeptical Science ever admitted to error, or allowed dissent.
If have seen both, what they don't allow is people to post demonstrably false information, go off topic or dip into personal insults.
The fact is that every single climate model predicted major increases in temperature that have not occurred. Yet somehow these models are still supposed to be correct?
That's a claim, not a fact, and Skeptical Science has a debunking of that claim too.
The "corruption" angle of this is far more pervasive than just games or game reviews.
As far as I can tell, GamerGate claims to be about gaming journalism ethics and not any media that matters in any significant way.
It was an interesting coincidence that a Jewish reporter in Israel was complaining about media corruption from a different angle when this story was being broken.
No, it really isn't.
Her perspective was that inconvenient facts and stories are not published. Things that don't support the dogma that your editors want to push are suppressed.
You must be either be clueless or a teenager, if you didn't already know that. It's the most prevalent side effect of the commercialization of the news media. I think Slashdot even covered at least one such scandal in the mainstream media and that was many years ago. In that case, a Fox channel in Florida fired two reporters who refused to edit out parts of their news story that were critical of an advertiser (Monsanto). They sued Fox for wrongful dismissal, but lost the case because the courts ruled that Fox had no duty to tell it's audience the truth.
I'm not sure if it's shared ideology driven by the state of journalism academia or if it's mainly more crass corporate considerations but there's a definite group think at work.
I don't think it journalism academia, they despair for the state of the news media. I think it's simply the corruption of mixing profit-seeking in with the activities that are supposed to create the informed electorate. When the news is bought and paid for by the very same people the news is supposed to investigate, is it any wonder that there is corruption? In America, the government can manipulate the media by simply threatening to take actions that will reduce the profits of the news organization unless they carry the news the government wants them to carry. Because the news is a profit center, it's rasy for the government to manipulate these corporations by such simple means as denying access to media scrums or government officials. Things that won't get the average citizen riled up, but could cost the news organization ratings and thus money. Additionally, it's easy for the news corporation to be manipulated by their sponsors because all the sponsor has to do is threaten to move their advertising to a competitor to lobby for certain stories to be softballed. Even worse as time goes by and these tactics are more common, the news organizations learn to take these actions without even be prompted.
Professional journalism at this point can be at best described as a form of political propaganda.
In many ways the words "at this point" make that sentence less true. The term yellow journalism was coined in the 1890s, after all. The corruption of the news media waxes and wanes with the regulation imposed on it. That regulation is pretty loose right now in the name of free speech, which necessarily leaves a lot of room for corruption. There are worse things, for instance, most of the Russian media is pretty much owned by the Russian government so they repeat uncritically everything they are told to repeat which leads to worse media and worse governance.
Unfortunately, I really have no idea how you would go about making the news media less corrupt, other than maybe banning anything that claims to be news from accepting any sponsorship. If they aren't beholden to make a certain amount of profit for the sponsoring organization it becomes much more difficult to manipulate the editors, and through them the reporters.
He's not talking about that kind of disparity. The disparity he's talking about is the gap between the fortunes of the "rich" and the "poor". Wealth is accumulating rapidly on the "rich" side of the scale and we're not even sure if the "poor" side is accumulating anything. Now the rich will always have it better than the poor, so the real question is does it matter if the rich are one thousand, one million, on billion, or one trillion times better off than the poor? It seems to me the evidence, so far, indicates that the larger that gap, the worse off our society as a whole is. At furthest extreme it becomes easy for individuals to buy the votes to get the legislation which protects their interests passed. If you think that's already a problem, that might be an indication that the current inequality is already exceeding a reasonable threshold.
As far as I know, it isn't illegal to ride a horse (or drive a horse and buggy) on most roads (the exception being high-speed closed access roads like highways and interstates) in most countries. I suspect in 50 years time driving your own car will be considered a lot like horse riding or driving a buggy is today. It probably won't be illegal, just very expensive and thus out of reach for the majority of people.
How can NASA spend their budget effeciently when congressional representatives decide what they are allowed and required to work on? In this case a Republican Senator (Roger Wicker from Mississippi) amended the funding bill to require them to finish building it.
Actually, with James Inhofe in charge of the Senate committe on commerce sceince and transportation, it might be the case that anything science-related or any actual accomplishments in space is a defect of the intended process of funnelling vital money to the people who fund senatorial re-election campaigns.
In this case the "poison pill" was Republican Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi who attached an ammendment to NASA's funding bill requiring them to finish constructing the tower.
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. They're directly helping you and you're indirectly hurting people? They're injecting you with an inactive harmless version of the disease that will protect you, while you're infecting other people with an active harmful version of the disease that may kill them. In either case, the sanctity of someone's body is being violated and it seems to me that what you're doing is worse in every way that matters. Therefore, if they deserve death, you deserve it more.
Also what's your stand on inhalable vaccines? If you're not injected, but instead required to breath in the vaccine does that make a difference to you? Are you still allowed to murder people for violating your body or is it hunky-dory because it's not "piercing someone else's skin"?
There is no way in hell that any government is going to demand that I stick anything into my body, let alone my child's body. And, if anyone were to try to pierce my skin, or the skin of my loved one, self-defense will cover my tearing them limb from limb.
Am I allowed to pre-emptively kill you and your unvaccinated disease-machine children before you infect me and mine? I really want to know, because according to your philosophy, "self-defence will cover tearing [you] limb from limb" afterwards, but I'd rather do it before I get sick.
But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.
That works as long as you're not infectious. However, as soon as you become ill you are now violating those rights for everyone you come into contact with. You might think you would just avoid other people while you're sick, however, some diseases like the mumps (The second M in MMR), are infectious for days or weeks before you show symptoms.
If we take the road your propose what is your responsbility to those who died because of your choice? Do you owe their families a life time of financial support for the victims of your pathogens?
No, that's anarchism.
Libertarianism eventually boils down to "Fuck you, I've got mine and your taxes are going to help me keep it."
After all, the primary things that libertarians actually think taxes should be used for are police and armies, which both happen to be useful in protecting their property from other people. Effectively, they're just too cheap to pay their own way, even when it comes to protecting their own property.
Yes. Murdering millions of non-Americans is worse than murdering one American.
Are you really this fucking stupid?
Much like making your own shoes and it's a lost art for similar reasons.
I think if they compact all that "spent" uranium together into the volume of a three car garage, they might get a reaction...
You want ties to industry? How about cap and trade being written by the same geniuses that gave us credit default swaps [nakedcapitalism.com]? At the end of the day you can wave whatever flag you want because the only "solutions" being pushed are nothing but a reverse robin hood scam [youtube.com] where the actual polluters get carbon "indulgences" while those that can't afford to offshore their wealth get royally fucked in the ass to benefit the 1%...surprise surprise, the rich getting richer by stealing what few cents out of each dollar they don't already hoard.
You're American. Everything your country does is part of "a reverse robin hood scam".
It has never been as hot in the world as 1936.
Yes, it has. Globally every year since 1990 has been warmer than 1936.
Its been a long time since Canadian border states had temps at 121 degrees Fahrenheit.
Actually, that would be Steele city in North Dakota on July 6th, 1936. No other Canadian border state has ever recorded a temperature of 121 F. Also note that North Dakota and south Dakota both recorded record lows of -60 F and -58 F in 1936. However, as previously pointed out, North America is about 4.8% of the world's surface and around 16.5% of the land area A record-shattering warm year in the U.S. might be barely noticable in the global record. On average, the 2000-2010 decade was 0.5 C warmer than the 1930-1940 decade. Which means for 1936 to lift the global average, the average temperature in North America would have be 10 C above average for the entire year, if the rest of the world was experiencing merely average temperatures for the decade.
It would also be nice if there were no more snow exactly like the Hadley Climate Research Center said in the year 2000: "We have in all likelihood seen our last snowfall. Snow would become a rare and exciting event. Children would grow up not knowing what snow looked like." Who says all that tax money given to them was a waste?
That's not an accurate quote. Even the quote you gave contradicts itself. It's also important to note that he was talking about 20 years from when he said that, and if you check your calendar you might note that it's not 2020 yet. Additionally, I'd bet he actually said "if the current trends continue" but it was dropped from the quote in the article because it wasn't pithy enough with the qualifier. Of course, we have seen a reduction in the rate of warming in surface air temperatures since 2000 so it may take longer to get there than he predicted, but the world has continued to warm, so it may still come to pass that England sees very little snow.
Organized effort is not part of the definition. Irrelevant objection. Is there a concept of "Social Justice"? Yes/No. Are there people who fight for that concept of Social Justice? Yes/No. An individual fighting for Social Justice is a Social Justice Warrior. He doesn't have to be part of a group to be an SJW. Whether all SJWs are perfectly agreed on every ideological point is also irrelevant. There's a general trend that can be described.
You just changed the definition of Social Justice Warrior (SJW). This is different from the definition you previously gave me, which is exactly my point: SJW is a label applied to people with a different political alignment than you and you project whatever flaws are convenient to make you right and them wrong onto them. It's too bad you aren't self-aware enough to see that you're doing it while you protest that you are not.
But if I label the group of people who steal property, "thieves", is this mere projection? Have the actions not fulfilled the very definition of "thief"?
Is "thief" an identity? I say you're projecting an identity on a group of people you label as SJWs because I don't know if the group you think exists actually exists in any cohesive manner. Also, it's a bit like "racists" or "misogynists", most of the people you would put in the group probably wouldn't think they belong there. Often, I suspect the term is used to identify "people who have called me racist or sexist". I also suspect that more often than not the person has been called on their attitude multiple times and believes that since it's happened so often, the person choose to believe that there must be a conspiracy to silence them, rather than accepting that their beliefs or attitude is genuinely disliked for valid reasons by the people around them.
Are there or are there not a group of people who go around using "misogyny", "sexist", "racist", and other charged adjectives to police public behavior?
As far as I know there is not. There are people who use the terms too freely, but as far as I know, they are not part of any organised effort to police public behaviour.
Labeling the people who fight for "Social Justice", Social Justice Warriors, seems quite apt. Change the name to anything else, people will still hate the group, because they hate the actions of the group, not the label of the group.
I'm not arguing that the term needs to be changed. After all, what would be the point? I'm saying it is already effectively meaningless, much the way conservative talking heads have made liberal and progressive meaningless by ascribing it to virtually everything they don't like.