A notorious controversy is that after spending most of her life claiming that social security, medicare and other government programs were irredeemably evil, she signed up for both social security and medicare shortly after she became eligible to use them. Many people would conclude that she was only morally against wealth transfers when they flowed away from her.
Yes it did. He tried to use government to force to transfer ownership of private property to himself. It's a betrayal of everything he claims to stand for (and it's not the first time he's betrayed the principles he claims to hold). It's also pretty stupid to turn on your supporters in such a hypocritical way. The Libertarain solution would have been to start a kickstarter (or other) campaign to raise the money to buy the domain if he wasn't willing to pay the money out of pocket or out of an election campaign fund.
Actually, "finder keepers" is pretty much one of the core principles of libertarianism (and the free market) and one of the major reasons why other groups despise libertarian ethics. To libertarians, it shouldn't matter whether property is unique or not. According to the stated principles of all major branches of libertarianism, it is unethical to take someone's property by force unless it was acquired through violence or fraud. It is the most important and fundamental belief that all of libertarian philosophy is based on.
Furthermore, the people in question are Ron Paul's supporters, who believe they should be compensated for the work they've done in building the web site which Ron Paul now wants to control. The short-sightedness and hypocrisy boggle the mind.
Of course, you don't elected without telling some lies.
They're just sociopaths who've learned to leverage their charisma to exert control.
Most of them aren't actually sociopaths, though politics is a career that will attract more than it's fair share of sociopaths. Interestingly, the other profession that attract more than it's fair share of sociopaths is corporate management.
Clinton probably would have bought the domain and the mailing list. She's smart enough to know that starting legal proceedings against your own supporters is a generally a bad idea. The reasons this is news, is it's one of the most libertarian American politicians trying (and failing) to use the heavy boot of government to get around the free market.
It's the betrayal of Ron Paul's professed core principles over the fairly trivial matter of a domain name that is the real news.
You can buy the game for less than the cost of new (or again whats the point) for a digitally identical product (no worrying about does it actually work) and do it instantly from your living room.
If they did that, the publishers would revolt. Think about it, Microsoft would be selling digital copies of the game for less than retail and probably not obliged to give any of the money back to the publisher. Of course, I suppose they could split the money three ways, but if you're getting less than a third of the retail price of the game in exchange for trading it, is it still worth it? An allternative way I see this working is if Microsoft allows you to "return" digitally downloaded games for a small refund in Microsoft dollars (M$) which can only be spent on other Xbox digital purchases. The carrot is the ability to get money for returned games, the stick is you can only spend the money on the Xbox. Lock-in achieved.
They are a symptom of the underlying problem; government doesn't know how to make tax law.
Do you suppose they might be making a fuss about the loopholes so that people get upset enough that they will be allowed to close them? Remember, Grover Norquist opposes closing tax loopholes unless the base rate of taxes is lowered to compensate for the increased revenue and he owns the balls of the entire Republican party.
Except, according to the shell company game that Apple is playing, revenues generated in the U.S. are actually generated in "no country" at all. In fact, the U.S. branch of Apple probably has gigantic expenses that it owes to another branch of the company that operates in international waters (or the Cayman Islands, or Ireland) for the use of the trademark "Apple". It's a shame, if that other part of the company operating out of international waters weren't so darn greedy, the American branch of Apple might be able to turn a profit*.
* This may be a slight exageration, but it's an example of one of the tricks that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other companies use to hide local revenues from local jurisdictions.
A better study might look at the scrutiny applied to these 97% vs the *rejected* papers that disagreed with the 97%.
That would be an interesting study, but I don't think it would practical to do so. I doubt most journals archive copies of articles they don't print.
Of course, someone should give it a try. I expect the result will be far from what you would expect. According to the information available to me, it looks like the majority of rejected papers that deal with the source of global warming, also support the human-cause hypothesis. I am aware that at various times the people who promote the idea that alternate viewpoints are being excluded from publication have been challenged to provide proof. So far they have been unable to find any papers that were being excluded from publication on any grounds other than poor methodology (which has directly led to unreliable conclusions). In fact, there is real evidence to show that some scientists who are opposed to the human-cause hypothesis were actually given preferential treatment in one journal. There's no evidence of the opposite happening.
You are correct, I misunderstood what the two-thirds number was about. Two-thirds of the papers didn't take a position on whether humans were causing global warming and it's likely that the reason is because they weren't about the causes of climate change or a topic strongly related to that.
The problem is that the government is keeps getting bigger to supposedly fight global warming but they do nothing in their direct power to do something about it.
That would be a problem, but assuming you mean the American government, it hasn't actually taken many, if any, steps to fight global warming. A major reason for that is that Republican party strategists have focused on a campaign of claiming that the science isn't settled in direct contradiction to fact, confirmed by this study, that it is. This argument is used to delay and derail any legislation that might govern traditional Republican allies in the oil and coal industries.
Unfortunately, voting is not science. 99% of scientist used to say that "the Earth was flat", that "the Earth was the center of the Universe", that... All proved wrong.
I'm not sure how many scientists there were around 300 BC, which was when the Earth was first proven to be round, but I'm pretty sure that the religious fundamentalists would have been the ones saying it wasn't.
I don't think you understood that sentence, it seems pretty clear that it means:
"They also asked 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate their own studies, with nearly identical results [to the evaluations provided by the study's volunteers]"
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
You've made a mistake, it was two thirds of the scientific papers that didn't take a position on climate change. Most often, I think, because they weren't about climate change or a strongly related topic.
There are several other polls that showed that 97% of climate scientists agree that it's occurring, and 80-90% of scientists in related fields also think so.
If man had something to do with it, and our activity is essentially increasing exponentially with new humans being born all the time (and China kicking industrial action into high gear), then wouldn't the impact on climate also be exponential?
No, actually. CO2 concentrations increase temperature logarithmicly, so while population is increasing at a decreasing exponential rate (expected to hit 0% growth this century), the higher the concentration of CO2 goes, the less warming each addition ppm actualy contributes.
Human activity has been increasing, yet the whole warming thing STALLED 17 years ago.
You math is off, the warming trend is flat if (and only if) you take start from the fall of 1997, and that's 16 years currently. However, that's a cherry-picked start date and there are problems with choosing your data to make a particular point. more generally,you can always draw flat trend lines on noisy data regardless of whether the overall trend is up, down or constant.
But google is just getting rolling here immiagine what they will be able to do in 10 years.
Show you ads for cool stuff you actually want to buy?
I'm not sure how more targetted ads can make you buy stuff you don't actually want unless you're remarkably weak willed. The effect of most advertising isn't to make you spend more, but rather to influence the target group to spend marginally more money with the advertiser.
Reducing pollution is expensive. If it was free, companies would already do it. The only reason to pollute v/s not pollute is because the former helps profits.
So if it costs more money for, let's say... food manufacturers to produce their goods, the cost of those goods will necessarily have to increase. And the people who need food will suffer because they'll have to dedicate more of their scarce resources to that acquisition. This disproportionately impacts the poor and lower class. Their lives become significantly more difficult.
You don't seem to understand. Generally speaking, it costs less to prevent pollution than it does to clear it up or deal with it's effects after it has been dispersed. Thus if the polluter reduces their pollution output, it actually increases the general prosperity because otherwise people have to pay to deal with the effects of the pollution individually or through government taxes. No matter what happens, people end up paying for the pollution, it's just that the polluter makes sure other people are paying the bulk of the (magnified) costs for their pollution. It's more efficient to have the private industry that creates the pollution deal with it.
Sure he does, but you seem to be confused. You are confusing the standards for non-existence with the standards for other, less rigourous standards. So while a lack of evidence isn't convincing proof of non-existence, it is a convincing proof of lack of abundance.
Let's take a classic example:
If you want to prove that unicorns don't exist, you need to check everywhere before you can definitively rule out their existance.
However, if you want to prove that unicorns aren't everwhere, you only need to check one place to definitely rule out that possibility.
If you want to measure how unicorns are doing in an area, you need to check a representative sample of the area and count the number of unicorns you find.
Different statements have different burdens of proof.
Slashdot Mirror
One example come to mind immediately:
A notorious controversy is that after spending most of her life claiming that social security, medicare and other government programs were irredeemably evil, she signed up for both social security and medicare shortly after she became eligible to use them. Many people would conclude that she was only morally against wealth transfers when they flowed away from her.
But he didn't cross his stated principles.
Yes it did. He tried to use government to force to transfer ownership of private property to himself. It's a betrayal of everything he claims to stand for (and it's not the first time he's betrayed the principles he claims to hold). It's also pretty stupid to turn on your supporters in such a hypocritical way. The Libertarain solution would have been to start a kickstarter (or other) campaign to raise the money to buy the domain if he wasn't willing to pay the money out of pocket or out of an election campaign fund.
Actually, "finder keepers" is pretty much one of the core principles of libertarianism (and the free market) and one of the major reasons why other groups despise libertarian ethics. To libertarians, it shouldn't matter whether property is unique or not. According to the stated principles of all major branches of libertarianism, it is unethical to take someone's property by force unless it was acquired through violence or fraud. It is the most important and fundamental belief that all of libertarian philosophy is based on.
Furthermore, the people in question are Ron Paul's supporters, who believe they should be compensated for the work they've done in building the web site which Ron Paul now wants to control. The short-sightedness and hypocrisy boggle the mind.
All politicians are liars. Yes, *ALL* of them.
Of course, you don't elected without telling some lies.
They're just sociopaths who've learned to leverage their charisma to exert control.
Most of them aren't actually sociopaths, though politics is a career that will attract more than it's fair share of sociopaths. Interestingly, the other profession that attract more than it's fair share of sociopaths is corporate management.
Clinton probably would have bought the domain and the mailing list. She's smart enough to know that starting legal proceedings against your own supporters is a generally a bad idea. The reasons this is news, is it's one of the most libertarian American politicians trying (and failing) to use the heavy boot of government to get around the free market.
It's the betrayal of Ron Paul's professed core principles over the fairly trivial matter of a domain name that is the real news.
You can buy the game for less than the cost of new (or again whats the point) for a digitally identical product (no worrying about does it actually work) and do it instantly from your living room.
If they did that, the publishers would revolt. Think about it, Microsoft would be selling digital copies of the game for less than retail and probably not obliged to give any of the money back to the publisher. Of course, I suppose they could split the money three ways, but if you're getting less than a third of the retail price of the game in exchange for trading it, is it still worth it? An allternative way I see this working is if Microsoft allows you to "return" digitally downloaded games for a small refund in Microsoft dollars (M$) which can only be spent on other Xbox digital purchases. The carrot is the ability to get money for returned games, the stick is you can only spend the money on the Xbox. Lock-in achieved.
Yes, the best thing to do with a guard dog is to mistreat it and starve it. That will never backfire.
They are a symptom of the underlying problem; government doesn't know how to make tax law.
Do you suppose they might be making a fuss about the loopholes so that people get upset enough that they will be allowed to close them? Remember, Grover Norquist opposes closing tax loopholes unless the base rate of taxes is lowered to compensate for the increased revenue and he owns the balls of the entire Republican party.
Except, according to the shell company game that Apple is playing, revenues generated in the U.S. are actually generated in "no country" at all. In fact, the U.S. branch of Apple probably has gigantic expenses that it owes to another branch of the company that operates in international waters (or the Cayman Islands, or Ireland) for the use of the trademark "Apple". It's a shame, if that other part of the company operating out of international waters weren't so darn greedy, the American branch of Apple might be able to turn a profit*.
* This may be a slight exageration, but it's an example of one of the tricks that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other companies use to hide local revenues from local jurisdictions.
What, by off-shoring production of their smart phones to China? Imagine the horror if Apple did that!
A better study might look at the scrutiny applied to these 97% vs the *rejected* papers that disagreed with the 97%.
That would be an interesting study, but I don't think it would practical to do so. I doubt most journals archive copies of articles they don't print. Of course, someone should give it a try. I expect the result will be far from what you would expect. According to the information available to me, it looks like the majority of rejected papers that deal with the source of global warming, also support the human-cause hypothesis. I am aware that at various times the people who promote the idea that alternate viewpoints are being excluded from publication have been challenged to provide proof. So far they have been unable to find any papers that were being excluded from publication on any grounds other than poor methodology (which has directly led to unreliable conclusions). In fact, there is real evidence to show that some scientists who are opposed to the human-cause hypothesis were actually given preferential treatment in one journal. There's no evidence of the opposite happening.
You are correct, I misunderstood what the two-thirds number was about. Two-thirds of the papers didn't take a position on whether humans were causing global warming and it's likely that the reason is because they weren't about the causes of climate change or a topic strongly related to that.
Actually, 1998 is now the 3rd warmest year on record behind 2005 and 2010.
In the United States, 1934 is the 4th warmest year on record behind 1998, 2006, and 2012.
Globally, 1934 is the 49th warmest year because the extreme heat was mostly limited to North America.
The problem is that the government is keeps getting bigger to supposedly fight global warming but they do nothing in their direct power to do something about it.
That would be a problem, but assuming you mean the American government, it hasn't actually taken many, if any, steps to fight global warming. A major reason for that is that Republican party strategists have focused on a campaign of claiming that the science isn't settled in direct contradiction to fact, confirmed by this study, that it is. This argument is used to delay and derail any legislation that might govern traditional Republican allies in the oil and coal industries.
You're committing the logical falacy of appeal to consequences. Whether or not you like the remedy has no bearing on whether the problem exists.
Unfortunately, voting is not science. 99% of scientist used to say that "the Earth was flat", that "the Earth was the center of the Universe", that... All proved wrong.
I'm not sure how many scientists there were around 300 BC, which was when the Earth was first proven to be round, but I'm pretty sure that the religious fundamentalists would have been the ones saying it wasn't.
I don't think you understood that sentence, it seems pretty clear that it means:
"They also asked 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate their own studies, with nearly identical results [to the evaluations provided by the study's volunteers]"
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
You've made a mistake, it was two thirds of the scientific papers that didn't take a position on climate change. Most often, I think, because they weren't about climate change or a strongly related topic.
There are several other polls that showed that 97% of climate scientists agree that it's occurring, and 80-90% of scientists in related fields also think so.
If man had something to do with it, and our activity is essentially increasing exponentially with new humans being born all the time (and China kicking industrial action into high gear), then wouldn't the impact on climate also be exponential?
No, actually. CO2 concentrations increase temperature logarithmicly, so while population is increasing at a decreasing exponential rate (expected to hit 0% growth this century), the higher the concentration of CO2 goes, the less warming each addition ppm actualy contributes.
Human activity has been increasing, yet the whole warming thing STALLED 17 years ago.
You math is off, the warming trend is flat if (and only if) you take start from the fall of 1997, and that's 16 years currently. However, that's a cherry-picked start date and there are problems with choosing your data to make a particular point. more generally,you can always draw flat trend lines on noisy data regardless of whether the overall trend is up, down or constant.
It's hard to make someone understand a thing when his self-respect depends on him not understanding it.
97% of scientists agree that global warming has the best and strongest proof. Now what?
But google is just getting rolling here immiagine what they will be able to do in 10 years.
Show you ads for cool stuff you actually want to buy?
I'm not sure how more targetted ads can make you buy stuff you don't actually want unless you're remarkably weak willed. The effect of most advertising isn't to make you spend more, but rather to influence the target group to spend marginally more money with the advertiser.
Personally, I think he's arguing that anything he doesn't like is false.
Reducing pollution is expensive. If it was free, companies would already do it. The only reason to pollute v/s not pollute is because the former helps profits.
So if it costs more money for, let's say... food manufacturers to produce their goods, the cost of those goods will necessarily have to increase. And the people who need food will suffer because they'll have to dedicate more of their scarce resources to that acquisition. This disproportionately impacts the poor and lower class. Their lives become significantly more difficult.
You don't seem to understand. Generally speaking, it costs less to prevent pollution than it does to clear it up or deal with it's effects after it has been dispersed. Thus if the polluter reduces their pollution output, it actually increases the general prosperity because otherwise people have to pay to deal with the effects of the pollution individually or through government taxes. No matter what happens, people end up paying for the pollution, it's just that the polluter makes sure other people are paying the bulk of the (magnified) costs for their pollution. It's more efficient to have the private industry that creates the pollution deal with it.
Sure he does, but you seem to be confused. You are confusing the standards for non-existence with the standards for other, less rigourous standards. So while a lack of evidence isn't convincing proof of non-existence, it is a convincing proof of lack of abundance.
Let's take a classic example:
If you want to prove that unicorns don't exist, you need to check everywhere before you can definitively rule out their existance.
However, if you want to prove that unicorns aren't everwhere, you only need to check one place to definitely rule out that possibility.
If you want to measure how unicorns are doing in an area, you need to check a representative sample of the area and count the number of unicorns you find.
Different statements have different burdens of proof.