You're replying to SuperKendall, a cursory glance at his posting history would have revealed that he has never, ever taken more than 2 second to think about anything.
"Also, consider this. Canada still imports 10% of its dairy from the US. The US, in contrast, caps imports of foreign dairy at 3%".
I trust you understand that Canada has one tenth the population of the US. So given your numbers, if canada sells 10 million liters of milk, 1 million comes from the US. The US, in this scenario, would sell 100 million liters of milk and 3% off that translates into 3 million liters of imported milk. Using absolute numbers instead of relative would indicate a trade deficit (1 million != 3 million)
Or, you could use actual numbers from the USDA. Total imports from Canada (not including dried milk) in 2017 were 598kg out of the 15,673,738kg of dairy imports. So using your methodology above, that would actually mean that Canada would buy 1 million kg of dairy products from the U.S. and in return the U.S. would buy 3815 kg of dairy products from Canada. When we look at the actual numbers, it does seem a little bit imbalanced doesn't it?
The decline was until the mid 1970s, it didn't stop in the 1940s.
I suppose all those dead people magically sprang back to life, and all the shattered industry magically repaired itself at the end of the war too? And that's just one factor that you blithely ignored because it was inconvenient.
Additionally, there was that massive heating (worldwide, might I add) that happened in the 1930s.
And the pause is "eliminated" by inclusion of bad satellite data, which the folks who run the satellite system itself (Dr. Roy Spencer and others) say you shouldn't do. Drop the bad data, and we have a pause - even as CO2 continued to increase.
That post is about an article "Sensitivity of satellite derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment" which most people would realize is about the troposphere warm spot, and not about the actual temperature record. Do you bother to read or understand things before you link to them or is this just you desperately grasping at any straw to reaffirm you preconceived notions?
Maybe you should do some actual research and come up with something actually coherent before you start playing this mind-numbingly stupid game of whataboutisms? Cherry-picking random facts and claiming they disprove something because you don't understand, is just illustrating that you don't understand.
Nobody measures this. Worse, some arrogantly claim it is irrelevant.
Clearly then, someone must be able to tell me how many people have died so far from thatthings weren't invented soon enough, because the cities of the world decided to build sewers? I also expect you to provide an accounting of all the people who didn't die because sewers were created and the epidemics of waste related diseases that didn't occur.
People say it's irrelevant because no one can reliable measure the impact of events that did not happen. You're entering the realm of "making shit up to justify what you want to believe", and you should know better.
In case you're wondering why I picked sewers, several estimates have pinned the cost to the world to prevent global warming as approximately equal to the cost of building and maintaining the world's sewer systems.
Even an astrologer can make predictions that fall within error bars.
Really? What are the error bars on this prediction:
"Talk with those who can help you get the ball rolling. Financial advice is recommended in order to gauge your true material worth and get the happy results you seek. Give your imagination free rein and see where it leads. You will not welcome interruptions. Romance is fun today"
No, just a clever idiot who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and also believes that he's winning arguments when he exhausts his opponents with endless inane questions. He doesn't understand the difference between winning and being shunned.
When you only ask one side to provide proof of something, that's bullshit.
That's true, however...
When the one side making the absurd claims is the side that has not conducted any repeatable experiments on the matter, has not been able to accurately predict things, and keeps revising both their models and data points in order to fit their hypothesis, yet they're the "accepted" side, that's bullshit.
I absolute agree with you that Pruitt needs to produce some evidence to support his position. But, of course, in you thought you were attacking climate scientists. However, nothing you wrote actually applies to them. They provide the data, the methods, the models and the repeatable experiments for virtually everything they do. Curiously, however, your statements apply well to every single alternative theory that tries to explain the observed facts of climate change. None of them have been able to survive even casual scrutiny from interested reviewers.
But the most bullshit thing is not realizing the simple fact that carbon dioxide is absolutely not the primary cause of global warming.
Except, of course, that it actually is. It's the primary driver of global warming because of the volume and longevity of CO2 produced by human activity.
Not only is CO2 a weak greenhouse gas, human production of it doesn't account for the majority of it.
The majority of the total CO2 in the atmosphere? That's true, for now, since pre-industrial levels are estimated to have been lower than 290 ppm and we're currently around 411 ppm. However, human activity has produced all of the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial levels. We know that because natural factors have been acting as a CO2 sink and absorbing more CO2 than they release. CO2 is a relatively weak CO2 gas but again we produce a lot more of it and it last a very long time in the atmosphere so it's the primary driver of the change, and then it is amplified because a little bit of warming from CO2 increases the average amount of water in the air which drives further warming. It's similar to pennies, they might not be worth much individually, but a million pennies is worth a lot more than a dozen hundred dollar bills.
The primary cause of warming and cooling is the fucking sun, by far.
No, it's not. The sun has cooled slightly while the average temperature continues to rise, and that's a good thing because the earth would be warming even faster if the sun were actually warming. In any case, the effect of the sun's tiny variation in output is far smaller than the effects of the increase in the greenhouse effect.
If you want to get into secondary factors, then plain ol' water vapor beats out CO2 by a country mile.
Because water vapour content is driven by average temperature, it's considered an amplifier rather a primary cause of warming. It applies the effect of every other greenhouse gas, but it can not be increased or decreased independently and that's why CO2 is considered more important as a greenhouse gas than water vapour.
You've got a few things right, but you've failed to understand what those things actually mean.
So then, the decline in temperatures from ~1940 to 1975 was caused by rising CO2?
Yeah, what could possible have happened between Sep 1, 1939 and Sep 2, 1945 that could have an effect on the world? I'm sure everything was totally peaceful and nothing at all changed during those years.
Or the pause for most of this millenia (and we're almost back down to that temperature, now the big El Nino of 2016 is over) is also caused by rising CO2?
I disagree. I'm pretty Pruitt will produce a thick, professional looking folder that is literally overflowing with all of his evidence, which, of course, will be several hundred photocopies of his butt.
Yes, everyone at my Church knows that the "Theory of Gravity" is really just a plot to turn children gay and atheist. That's why we're organizing to have our schools teach Intelligent Falling instead of the completely debunked and not-at-all-true "Theory of Gravity".
I suspect they have a monetization plan. You don't pay 7.5 billion dollars for something without expecting to make a lot of money off it in the future...
Interestingly enough, obesity rates and obesity related mortality rates rise in every country that establishes a trade agreement with the United States. The more open the country becomes to food imports from the United States, the higher the rates rise. Such cheap and delicious poison.
It seems to me that this may not be fair to Trump. If he wants to use it as a campaign account, and not the voice of the US government, he should be able to say who can and can't see or respond in that forum, because then it is about the message he is presenting for himself.
Trump uses his personal Twitter to make official government announcements, so it's a part of the government, and the government can't censor people for their political views. If he wanted to only use it for campaigning and thus have the ability to censor people, he'd have to stop using it for official government business.
Amazing, a man that nobody likes manages to make a career out of making deals and another that nobody likes and has not successfully negotiated once, yet the latter is the expert.
Authoritarians I don't understand as well... but the ones who really perplex me are what should be standard relatively ordinary Republicans. I get partisanship can make you a reluctant supporter, but he still has massive support among rank-and-file Republicans, I don't understand how they can look at his antics and corruptions and not be completely freaked out.
They believe in the Republican party and the Republican media. The Republican media tells them everything is all right, there are no problems. Trump's a great guy and going to be the best president ever and so they think everything fine. They've been constantly told repeatedly for decades that all the rest of the media is liberal and can't be trusted so they shun everything but the Republican media. They literally have no clue and think anything negative about Trump is exaggeration, lies, or just being mean. It's not a new thing either. For example, many of them not only believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq to capture and destroy nuclear weapons, many of them believe the U.S. actually did just that, but the liberal media covered it up because they didn't like George W. Bush.
The short answer is they don't look at the antics, don't see the corruption, make excuses for whatever they do notice, and thus they see no reason to freak out because they choose not to know.
Yes, but some people can't get past the "terrible suffering" of Dr. Matt Taylor because some people on twitter said his shirt wasn't appropriate to wear for an interview on national television.
The group he objects to being associated with specifically discriminates against people who state anything that can be construed as critical towards peers when they belong to a "protected" group.
Well that's just wrong. The CoC says you should be nice, and you can't criticize people for belonging to under represented groups. You can still constructively criticize work if it's done poorly.
Until he may say something that could be construed as negative towards "protected" individuals.
I see, since someone might get angry with him in the future for a bogus reason, so he's going to become a hermit. So wise.
"Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. "
That's funny. I can't seem to find that quote in the Code of Conduct.
They follow by saying they condone "reversism's". In other words if you are white male or female you can be openly harassed within the community because you are considered privileged. What the hell has happened to these projects?!
However, I was able to find those words in a template Code of Conduct posted by the TODO Group. Did you somehow end up reading the wrong code of conduct?
Yes, I agree. A code of conduct that says you should be nice to people?! What is the world coming to? Everybody knows that the best programmers are assholes and enjoy being assholes, right? And that makes better code: when you drive out the people who can't take being insulted and belittled, only the strong survive, and are better programmers for it.
Indeed, didn't we all learn that from the BOFH? If you can't torture everyone else, why even bother?
Slashdot Mirror
You're replying to SuperKendall, a cursory glance at his posting history would have revealed that he has never, ever taken more than 2 second to think about anything.
"Also, consider this. Canada still imports 10% of its dairy from the US. The US, in contrast, caps imports of foreign dairy at 3%".
I trust you understand that Canada has one tenth the population of the US. So given your numbers, if canada sells 10 million liters of milk, 1 million comes from the US. The US, in this scenario, would sell 100 million liters of milk and 3% off that translates into 3 million liters of imported milk. Using absolute numbers instead of relative would indicate a trade deficit (1 million != 3 million)
Or, you could use actual numbers from the USDA. Total imports from Canada (not including dried milk) in 2017 were 598kg out of the 15,673,738kg of dairy imports. So using your methodology above, that would actually mean that Canada would buy 1 million kg of dairy products from the U.S. and in return the U.S. would buy 3815 kg of dairy products from Canada. When we look at the actual numbers, it does seem a little bit imbalanced doesn't it?
Or "-1 Batshit crazy"?
So there's a conspiracy because you can't read the labels on graphs? U.S. temperature is not the same as global temperature.
Is everything stupid you write and do explained away by a mysterious cabal of conspirators who seek to undermine you?
The decline was until the mid 1970s, it didn't stop in the 1940s.
I suppose all those dead people magically sprang back to life, and all the shattered industry magically repaired itself at the end of the war too? And that's just one factor that you blithely ignored because it was inconvenient.
Additionally, there was that massive heating (worldwide, might I add) that happened in the 1930s.
What massive heating in the 1930s?
And the pause is "eliminated" by inclusion of bad satellite data, which the folks who run the satellite system itself (Dr. Roy Spencer and others) say you shouldn't do. Drop the bad data, and we have a pause - even as CO2 continued to increase.
That post is about an article "Sensitivity of satellite derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment" which most people would realize is about the troposphere warm spot, and not about the actual temperature record. Do you bother to read or understand things before you link to them or is this just you desperately grasping at any straw to reaffirm you preconceived notions?
Maybe you should do some actual research and come up with something actually coherent before you start playing this mind-numbingly stupid game of whataboutisms? Cherry-picking random facts and claiming they disprove something because you don't understand, is just illustrating that you don't understand.
Nobody measures this. Worse, some arrogantly claim it is irrelevant.
Clearly then, someone must be able to tell me how many people have died so far from thatthings weren't invented soon enough, because the cities of the world decided to build sewers? I also expect you to provide an accounting of all the people who didn't die because sewers were created and the epidemics of waste related diseases that didn't occur.
People say it's irrelevant because no one can reliable measure the impact of events that did not happen. You're entering the realm of "making shit up to justify what you want to believe", and you should know better.
In case you're wondering why I picked sewers, several estimates have pinned the cost to the world to prevent global warming as approximately equal to the cost of building and maintaining the world's sewer systems.
Even an astrologer can make predictions that fall within error bars.
Really? What are the error bars on this prediction:
Plus or minus 10%, 19 times out of 20?
No, just a clever idiot who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and also believes that he's winning arguments when he exhausts his opponents with endless inane questions. He doesn't understand the difference between winning and being shunned.
Sorry, but almost everything you wrote is wrong.
When you only ask one side to provide proof of something, that's bullshit.
That's true, however...
When the one side making the absurd claims is the side that has not conducted any repeatable experiments on the matter, has not been able to accurately predict things, and keeps revising both their models and data points in order to fit their hypothesis, yet they're the "accepted" side, that's bullshit.
I absolute agree with you that Pruitt needs to produce some evidence to support his position. But, of course, in you thought you were attacking climate scientists. However, nothing you wrote actually applies to them. They provide the data, the methods, the models and the repeatable experiments for virtually everything they do. Curiously, however, your statements apply well to every single alternative theory that tries to explain the observed facts of climate change. None of them have been able to survive even casual scrutiny from interested reviewers.
But the most bullshit thing is not realizing the simple fact that carbon dioxide is absolutely not the primary cause of global warming.
Except, of course, that it actually is. It's the primary driver of global warming because of the volume and longevity of CO2 produced by human activity.
Not only is CO2 a weak greenhouse gas, human production of it doesn't account for the majority of it.
The majority of the total CO2 in the atmosphere? That's true, for now, since pre-industrial levels are estimated to have been lower than 290 ppm and we're currently around 411 ppm. However, human activity has produced all of the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial levels. We know that because natural factors have been acting as a CO2 sink and absorbing more CO2 than they release. CO2 is a relatively weak CO2 gas but again we produce a lot more of it and it last a very long time in the atmosphere so it's the primary driver of the change, and then it is amplified because a little bit of warming from CO2 increases the average amount of water in the air which drives further warming. It's similar to pennies, they might not be worth much individually, but a million pennies is worth a lot more than a dozen hundred dollar bills.
The primary cause of warming and cooling is the fucking sun, by far.
No, it's not. The sun has cooled slightly while the average temperature continues to rise, and that's a good thing because the earth would be warming even faster if the sun were actually warming. In any case, the effect of the sun's tiny variation in output is far smaller than the effects of the increase in the greenhouse effect.
If you want to get into secondary factors, then plain ol' water vapor beats out CO2 by a country mile.
Because water vapour content is driven by average temperature, it's considered an amplifier rather a primary cause of warming. It applies the effect of every other greenhouse gas, but it can not be increased or decreased independently and that's why CO2 is considered more important as a greenhouse gas than water vapour.
You've got a few things right, but you've failed to understand what those things actually mean.
So then, the decline in temperatures from ~1940 to 1975 was caused by rising CO2?
Yeah, what could possible have happened between Sep 1, 1939 and Sep 2, 1945 that could have an effect on the world? I'm sure everything was totally peaceful and nothing at all changed during those years.
Or the pause for most of this millenia (and we're almost back down to that temperature, now the big El Nino of 2016 is over) is also caused by rising CO2?
What pause?
Perhaps it's not CO2 that is the big culprit here - if the trends don't correlate, than the chance for causation is essentially nil.
Who says the trends don't correlate? You? Did you account for confounding variables when you were measuring your correlations?
I disagree. I'm pretty Pruitt will produce a thick, professional looking folder that is literally overflowing with all of his evidence, which, of course, will be several hundred photocopies of his butt.
Yes, everyone at my Church knows that the "Theory of Gravity" is really just a plot to turn children gay and atheist. That's why we're organizing to have our schools teach Intelligent Falling instead of the completely debunked and not-at-all-true "Theory of Gravity".
I suspect they have a monetization plan. You don't pay 7.5 billion dollars for something without expecting to make a lot of money off it in the future...
Yes, isn't it interesting that Obamacare resulted in healthy life expectancy in the U.S. going down?
Do you have any evidence to suggest causation? Because it seems more likely to be correlation.
Interestingly enough, obesity rates and obesity related mortality rates rise in every country that establishes a trade agreement with the United States. The more open the country becomes to food imports from the United States, the higher the rates rise. Such cheap and delicious poison.
It seems to me that this may not be fair to Trump. If he wants to use it as a campaign account, and not the voice of the US government, he should be able to say who can and can't see or respond in that forum, because then it is about the message he is presenting for himself.
Trump uses his personal Twitter to make official government announcements, so it's a part of the government, and the government can't censor people for their political views. If he wanted to only use it for campaigning and thus have the ability to censor people, he'd have to stop using it for official government business.
Amazing, a man that nobody likes manages to make a career out of making deals and another that nobody likes and has not successfully negotiated once, yet the latter is the expert.
Wait, which one is Trump supposed to be?
What if the moderators just think your comment is over rated and not actually very interesting?
Authoritarians I don't understand as well... but the ones who really perplex me are what should be standard relatively ordinary Republicans. I get partisanship can make you a reluctant supporter, but he still has massive support among rank-and-file Republicans, I don't understand how they can look at his antics and corruptions and not be completely freaked out.
They believe in the Republican party and the Republican media. The Republican media tells them everything is all right, there are no problems. Trump's a great guy and going to be the best president ever and so they think everything fine. They've been constantly told repeatedly for decades that all the rest of the media is liberal and can't be trusted so they shun everything but the Republican media. They literally have no clue and think anything negative about Trump is exaggeration, lies, or just being mean. It's not a new thing either. For example, many of them not only believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq to capture and destroy nuclear weapons, many of them believe the U.S. actually did just that, but the liberal media covered it up because they didn't like George W. Bush.
The short answer is they don't look at the antics, don't see the corruption, make excuses for whatever they do notice, and thus they see no reason to freak out because they choose not to know.
It's LynnwoodRooster. If his post isn't stupid, it's probably an imposter.
Yes, but some people can't get past the "terrible suffering" of Dr. Matt Taylor because some people on twitter said his shirt wasn't appropriate to wear for an interview on national television.
The group he objects to being associated with specifically discriminates against people who state anything that can be construed as critical towards peers when they belong to a "protected" group.
Well that's just wrong. The CoC says you should be nice, and you can't criticize people for belonging to under represented groups. You can still constructively criticize work if it's done poorly.
Until he may say something that could be construed as negative towards "protected" individuals.
I see, since someone might get angry with him in the future for a bogus reason, so he's going to become a hermit. So wise.
They actually have this in their CoC:
"Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. "
That's funny. I can't seem to find that quote in the Code of Conduct.
They follow by saying they condone "reversism's". In other words if you are white male or female you can be openly harassed within the community because you are considered privileged. What the hell has happened to these projects?!
Again, I don't see that in the actual Code of Conduct.
However, I was able to find those words in a template Code of Conduct posted by the TODO Group. Did you somehow end up reading the wrong code of conduct?
Yes, I agree. A code of conduct that says you should be nice to people?! What is the world coming to? Everybody knows that the best programmers are assholes and enjoy being assholes, right? And that makes better code: when you drive out the people who can't take being insulted and belittled, only the strong survive, and are better programmers for it.
Indeed, didn't we all learn that from the BOFH? If you can't torture everyone else, why even bother?
I'm pretty sure it's an oblique reference to Dr. Matt Taylor that also gets the details somewhat wrong...