Dude, that's a joke at your expense. You keep trying to argue around the fact that your "statement of fact" is obviously wrong.
I've provided you a simple and effective demonstration that your belief is not coherent with reality. Even your counter proof says "Trend: 0.14". You do realise that a positive trend indicates warming, right?
The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. (emphasis added) If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16C/decade (or 0.15C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8C. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.
The atmospheric warming trend has slowed a little, however, the ocean (which absorbs about 90% of the extra incoming heat from the green house effect) continues to warm, Decades of slower warming are expected. Especially, see Figure 2 in the last link. Natural variability laid on top of a trend can always lead to an endless series of plateaus, if you try hard enough.
Actually, he didn't. He said that there was no evidence of life yet on Mars, which is convincing evidence that it is not thriving. If it exists as a few scattered microbes, 2km deep under a frozen polar cap, then it certainly wouldn't meet my definition of "flourishing".
I'm not sure bacteria living near fresh water vents in the floor of the Dead Sea exactly counts as "thriving". Where do you draw the line between barely existing and thriving?
The planet was already warming anyway (kinda occurs after ice ages) remember.
Actually, we were on a long term cooling trend and we're still in the ice age. Never the less, the warming after a glacial period occurs immediately after that period ends and then a slow decline begins that eventually leads into another glacial period.
As for the people on the coast, we are talking about 50 - 100 year time frames. No house is going under tomorrow.
It's not usually a matter of sea level rise submerging a city, it's the effect of repeated flooding which becomes more common as sea levels rise. Usually, it won't be the evacuation of a city but a thousand unnoticed tragedies as individual residents and businesses are forced out by a combination of flooding damages and insurance costs. You might only notice the effects during events like Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina, if then.
This, though, is not the case if the new player would first of all have to raid through 5 years of content before he can play with the "big boys". Imagine people would have to start raiding in Molten Core today. Even if we ignored the impossibility to assemble 40 people to do it since everyone who is raiding with the "elite" doesn't give half a poop (unlike when it was new), how exciting do you think it is to start at the bottom?
I understand your point, but that might actually be better than what they've been doing. What happens right now is that every 1-2 years the game resets, most of the guilds fall apart because different people level at different speeds and the old content is completely useless. New players never see much of it because they never have to do a dungeon until they hit the level cap, and if they actually do a dungeon it's usually a speed run with a level-capped player destroying the dungeon for them.
Maybe they need to find a middle ground, but the current process seems to alienate a considerable number of players every other year, which can't be good for their subscription rates.
It also explains why so many pointy-haired bosses are willing to ruin good businesses for short-term profits. Don't forget that the long term doesn't matter if your plan includes not being around to collect the blame for your short-term decisions.
Why didn't the IT group suggest contacting the software developers and asking them to add support for the not-so-old equipment? It should be cheaper than replacing the equipment.
Of course, it actually can be. The distribution of extreme warm and extreme cold events can be an indicator of global warming. As the average temperature rises, the distribution of extreme temperature records shifts to favour warm temperatures. You have fewer record lows and more record highs. An indeed, this has happened. If we look at weather as a random effect based around a baseline climate, if the size of the random effect is bounded, then obviously as the baseline rises then both the minimum reachable and maximum reachable temperatures also increase. Eventually with enough warming, it may become impossible (without additional climate change induced cooling) for weather to reach historical lows.
I think recently we've been looking at 66%-75% record warm events to 25%-33% record cold events, which is a result that strongly indicates a global warming situation.
lmost as if the warming hasn't come from a persistent gas who's concentration continues to rise even as production falls, but by a transitory gas that is forced into higher concentrations by continuous industrial output, but which falls quickly with falling production and actually works as a significant greenhouse gas. You know, water vapor. The other product of combustion.
That's just amazingly stupid. Industrial production does not force water vapour into "higher concentrations" because there's a natural process called precipitation, or more commonly rain, that takes it out of the atmosphere after a few days. On the other hand, average water vapour content is actually tied to average global temperatures and thus is a global warming feedback mechanism. Which means, specifically, that it amplifies the warming effect of other greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
It is OCEAN ACIDIFICATION that will destroy us all, not balmy temperatures and poorly defined "increases in violent weather".
If you think anyone is claiming that "balmy temperatures" will "destroy us all", you're not paying enough attention. Ocean acidification is just one of a number of serious problems tied to the rise in global CO2 levels. Glacier depletion, decreased crop yields, heat stress, increased severe weather, and sea level rise are the major other threats. None of them will "destroy us all", that result is still most likely to be the outcome of a substantial nuclear exchange.
The data says you are wrong, and I've already shown you in the most basic way that what you believe is fundamentally and factually incorrect.
If you don't want to accept it because "reality has a well-known liberal bias", that's your problem.
Apparently you can. If you scroll down to "International Chart" you can see the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Spoiler: They're both authoritarian right wingers.
According to the article the Science teacher denies knowing about the experiment before hand, a suspension for mixing chemicals without authorization is probably justified.
Ok. I looked at the what happened and determined that the punishment does not fit the "crime". What she needs is a lecture on responsible chemical use, to have her parents called down to the school in the middle of the day and to be sent hom with a one or two day suspension (for her relatively minor recklessness). The goal is make sure she learns the lesson that she is not allowed to mix chemicals without supervision. Expulsion, on the other hand, certainly looks like behaviour of a cowardly administrator who looking to cover their ass.
Precisely the hoax to which I was referring. You DO know that the planet stopped heating up some 16 years ago, right?
If the planet stopped heating 16 years ago, why did ten of the ten warmest years on record occur in the last 16 years? It is literally impossible for the planet to have stopped heating before it reached those peak temperatures. It is simply not physically possible and it is sheer insanity to claim other wise. Furthermore the decade from 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record. How does you claim even make the least bit of sense?
It appears that you are either perpetrating the hoax or have fallen for it, global warming continues.
The point being, ultimately, that if that free viewer was an expected sale, then the price point could be reduced by $1 (or 99c, whatever the exact math is).
Again, I am not a theist nor am I a proponent of prayer, but doesn't the Harvard Study negate confirmation bias? The study does not show that prayer works, but it does show that there are some tangible benefits to it for those who believe in it.
Ok, we are agreed then, prayer doesn't work. To reiterate the answer to your original question:
People who believe that prayer works are ridiculed more than those who believe that life exists on other planets because prayer doesn't work. Therefore they believe in something that has been demonstrated to be false and that's the difference.
While I am not a theist, your argument fails as their is more evidence that prayer works than there is life on other worlds
Actually there isn't. There is evidence that prayer has no effect and no evidence to support it having any effect (anecdotes are not evidence) and while there is no evidence that life exists on other worlds, there is also no evidence that it does not exist on other worlds.
and yet people who believe that life exists on other planets, without any evidence to support that assertion whatsover are not subjected to the ridicule that people who believe in a higher power or deity.
Not all beliefs are of the same quality. For example, I would argue that it is reasonable to believe there is car parked in my garage, while it is not reasonable to believe there is a dragon sleeping in it. By the logic you are employing both statements should be equally believable. After all, you have no evidence that I have either a garage or a car. However most sane people would think one those statements is less believable than the other.
You would think that as fickle as the human person is, if all of those prayers and practices you mention continuously failed, people would simply cease to appeal to their deity and move on to something else.
Only someone who knows nothing about human nature should believe that. intermittent reinforcement is a powerful motivator. Even if prayer is totally ineffective, the people who pray for something generally have a chance of getting it. They usually pray for lots of things, and sometimes they what they pray for. Selective thinking leads them to believe that prayer works and when someone points out that they don't usually get everything they pray for, they will resort to an excuse as to why that isn't important.
it must be somewhat effective.
It's as effective as my anti-dragon rock. It protects the earth for dragons. You've never been attack by a dragon, so therefore it must be effective. Now we're both engaging is specious reasoning.
So, unless people are going to start their own scientific inquisition to eliminate error, it seems grossly injust for people to always bash the billions of people on the planet who think differently than you do.
It's not a matter of thinking differently, it's a matter of believing falsehoods. Prayer doesn't work, the people who think it does are both superstitious and suffering from confirmation bias.
Interesting idea, but 20 years is actually a bit too long, 98% of all profits will be earned in the first 14 years. Given that fact, your proposal would probably work better with a 10 year starting term.
Decentralized economies are incapable of creating such famines in fertile lands.
Really? Care to explain the Great Famine or Ethiopia or the Dust Bowl?
It's true that decentralized economies generally won't fail in the same ways as planned economies, they can still fail spectacularly.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, that's a joke at your expense. You keep trying to argue around the fact that your "statement of fact" is obviously wrong.
I've provided you a simple and effective demonstration that your belief is not coherent with reality. Even your counter proof says "Trend: 0.14". You do realise that a positive trend indicates warming, right?
Here's a quote from the Met Office:
The atmospheric warming trend has slowed a little, however, the ocean (which absorbs about 90% of the extra incoming heat from the green house effect) continues to warm, Decades of slower warming are expected. Especially, see Figure 2 in the last link. Natural variability laid on top of a trend can always lead to an endless series of plateaus, if you try hard enough.
I'm not sure, how many "hideous acts" does your group have to commit to turn you into the enemy of civilzation?
Actually, he didn't. He said that there was no evidence of life yet on Mars, which is convincing evidence that it is not thriving. If it exists as a few scattered microbes, 2km deep under a frozen polar cap, then it certainly wouldn't meet my definition of "flourishing".
I'm not sure bacteria living near fresh water vents in the floor of the Dead Sea exactly counts as "thriving". Where do you draw the line between barely existing and thriving?
Yeah, just like Iraq.
The jury is still out how much is natural and how much is man made.
If the jury is still out, it's because someone put Anthony Watts on it. Turns out, the natural component is about -5% of the warming, and the man-made component is about 105%. Seriously it doesn't get much clearer than that.
The planet was already warming anyway (kinda occurs after ice ages) remember.
Actually, we were on a long term cooling trend and we're still in the ice age. Never the less, the warming after a glacial period occurs immediately after that period ends and then a slow decline begins that eventually leads into another glacial period.
As for the people on the coast, we are talking about 50 - 100 year time frames. No house is going under tomorrow.
It's not usually a matter of sea level rise submerging a city, it's the effect of repeated flooding which becomes more common as sea levels rise. Usually, it won't be the evacuation of a city but a thousand unnoticed tragedies as individual residents and businesses are forced out by a combination of flooding damages and insurance costs. You might only notice the effects during events like Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina, if then.
Actually, what you describe sounds remarkably like what WoW was actually like for new players who started after BC came out.
This, though, is not the case if the new player would first of all have to raid through 5 years of content before he can play with the "big boys". Imagine people would have to start raiding in Molten Core today. Even if we ignored the impossibility to assemble 40 people to do it since everyone who is raiding with the "elite" doesn't give half a poop (unlike when it was new), how exciting do you think it is to start at the bottom?
I understand your point, but that might actually be better than what they've been doing. What happens right now is that every 1-2 years the game resets, most of the guilds fall apart because different people level at different speeds and the old content is completely useless. New players never see much of it because they never have to do a dungeon until they hit the level cap, and if they actually do a dungeon it's usually a speed run with a level-capped player destroying the dungeon for them. Maybe they need to find a middle ground, but the current process seems to alienate a considerable number of players every other year, which can't be good for their subscription rates.
It also explains why so many pointy-haired bosses are willing to ruin good businesses for short-term profits. Don't forget that the long term doesn't matter if your plan includes not being around to collect the blame for your short-term decisions.
Why didn't the IT group suggest contacting the software developers and asking them to add support for the not-so-old equipment? It should be cheaper than replacing the equipment.
Contrary to what some people try to claim, businesses aren't sticking with XP because they are lazy or stupid.
Right, they're doing it because they're cheap and scared.
Of course, it actually can be. The distribution of extreme warm and extreme cold events can be an indicator of global warming. As the average temperature rises, the distribution of extreme temperature records shifts to favour warm temperatures. You have fewer record lows and more record highs. An indeed, this has happened. If we look at weather as a random effect based around a baseline climate, if the size of the random effect is bounded, then obviously as the baseline rises then both the minimum reachable and maximum reachable temperatures also increase. Eventually with enough warming, it may become impossible (without additional climate change induced cooling) for weather to reach historical lows. I think recently we've been looking at 66%-75% record warm events to 25%-33% record cold events, which is a result that strongly indicates a global warming situation.
I suggested that to them a while ago, they asked me if I could implement it for them...
lmost as if the warming hasn't come from a persistent gas who's concentration continues to rise even as production falls, but by a transitory gas that is forced into higher concentrations by continuous industrial output, but which falls quickly with falling production and actually works as a significant greenhouse gas. You know, water vapor. The other product of combustion.
That's just amazingly stupid. Industrial production does not force water vapour into "higher concentrations" because there's a natural process called precipitation, or more commonly rain, that takes it out of the atmosphere after a few days. On the other hand, average water vapour content is actually tied to average global temperatures and thus is a global warming feedback mechanism. Which means, specifically, that it amplifies the warming effect of other greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
It is OCEAN ACIDIFICATION that will destroy us all, not balmy temperatures and poorly defined "increases in violent weather".
If you think anyone is claiming that "balmy temperatures" will "destroy us all", you're not paying enough attention. Ocean acidification is just one of a number of serious problems tied to the rise in global CO2 levels. Glacier depletion, decreased crop yields, heat stress, increased severe weather, and sea level rise are the major other threats. None of them will "destroy us all", that result is still most likely to be the outcome of a substantial nuclear exchange.
The data says you are wrong, and I've already shown you in the most basic way that what you believe is fundamentally and factually incorrect. If you don't want to accept it because "reality has a well-known liberal bias", that's your problem.
Apparently you can. If you scroll down to "International Chart" you can see the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Spoiler: They're both authoritarian right wingers.
According to the article the Science teacher denies knowing about the experiment before hand, a suspension for mixing chemicals without authorization is probably justified.
Ok. I looked at the what happened and determined that the punishment does not fit the "crime". What she needs is a lecture on responsible chemical use, to have her parents called down to the school in the middle of the day and to be sent hom with a one or two day suspension (for her relatively minor recklessness). The goal is make sure she learns the lesson that she is not allowed to mix chemicals without supervision. Expulsion, on the other hand, certainly looks like behaviour of a cowardly administrator who looking to cover their ass.
The criminal charges are just stupid.
Precisely the hoax to which I was referring. You DO know that the planet stopped heating up some 16 years ago, right?
If the planet stopped heating 16 years ago, why did ten of the ten warmest years on record occur in the last 16 years? It is literally impossible for the planet to have stopped heating before it reached those peak temperatures. It is simply not physically possible and it is sheer insanity to claim other wise. Furthermore the decade from 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record. How does you claim even make the least bit of sense?
It appears that you are either perpetrating the hoax or have fallen for it, global warming continues.
The point being, ultimately, that if that free viewer was an expected sale, then the price point could be reduced by $1 (or 99c, whatever the exact math is).
In the real world, we have a thing called profit and when something is very popular, the price tends to go up instead of down. It's probably more likely that prices wwould be lowered to bring in more paying customers.
If people don't pay for content, then some people will stop making content.
If I stop paying for content, will they stop making reality TV shows? Because I'm willing to make that sacrifice.
Again, I am not a theist nor am I a proponent of prayer, but doesn't the Harvard Study negate confirmation bias? The study does not show that prayer works, but it does show that there are some tangible benefits to it for those who believe in it.
Ok, we are agreed then, prayer doesn't work. To reiterate the answer to your original question: People who believe that prayer works are ridiculed more than those who believe that life exists on other planets because prayer doesn't work. Therefore they believe in something that has been demonstrated to be false and that's the difference.
While I am not a theist, your argument fails as their is more evidence that prayer works than there is life on other worlds
Actually there isn't. There is evidence that prayer has no effect and no evidence to support it having any effect (anecdotes are not evidence) and while there is no evidence that life exists on other worlds, there is also no evidence that it does not exist on other worlds.
and yet people who believe that life exists on other planets, without any evidence to support that assertion whatsover are not subjected to the ridicule that people who believe in a higher power or deity.
Not all beliefs are of the same quality. For example, I would argue that it is reasonable to believe there is car parked in my garage, while it is not reasonable to believe there is a dragon sleeping in it. By the logic you are employing both statements should be equally believable. After all, you have no evidence that I have either a garage or a car. However most sane people would think one those statements is less believable than the other.
You would think that as fickle as the human person is, if all of those prayers and practices you mention continuously failed, people would simply cease to appeal to their deity and move on to something else.
Only someone who knows nothing about human nature should believe that. intermittent reinforcement is a powerful motivator. Even if prayer is totally ineffective, the people who pray for something generally have a chance of getting it. They usually pray for lots of things, and sometimes they what they pray for. Selective thinking leads them to believe that prayer works and when someone points out that they don't usually get everything they pray for, they will resort to an excuse as to why that isn't important.
it must be somewhat effective.
It's as effective as my anti-dragon rock. It protects the earth for dragons. You've never been attack by a dragon, so therefore it must be effective. Now we're both engaging is specious reasoning.
So, unless people are going to start their own scientific inquisition to eliminate error, it seems grossly injust for people to always bash the billions of people on the planet who think differently than you do.
It's not a matter of thinking differently, it's a matter of believing falsehoods. Prayer doesn't work, the people who think it does are both superstitious and suffering from confirmation bias.
Interesting idea, but 20 years is actually a bit too long, 98% of all profits will be earned in the first 14 years. Given that fact, your proposal would probably work better with a 10 year starting term.
Decentralized economies are incapable of creating such famines in fertile lands.
Really? Care to explain the Great Famine or Ethiopia or the Dust Bowl? It's true that decentralized economies generally won't fail in the same ways as planned economies, they can still fail spectacularly.