Actually none of them specified what they'd accept.
I heard one say that ars technica was okay... does that mean only ars technica is okay or what? they did not commit to anything beyond that.
I heard another say that anything that wasn't anacotal would be acceptable. I then pointed out that the line between anacotal and non-anacotal is literally the number of citations. Something that is anacotal as a single example becomes data and evidence if you have lots of the same report. And then you have other issues with that.
But I got no framework for what was and was not acceptable actually despite asking for that repeatedly. And until I get that, I'm not going to waste my time to get evidence because you can still goal post move.
You've missed the point.
I want YOU to be FORCED by your own words to accept my data when I present it. No IFs ANDS or BUTs.
And that's what you're going to do if I don't lock you down before I do it. I know it. You know it. So you've failed to fool me.
Here are your options.
1. Present a framework of acceptance and then lose when I fill it.
2. Keep pretending you provided one even though both of us know that is a lie.
3. Have the discussion without asking for information you won't accept.
Choose. You will not get me to waste even two seconds of my time getting information without a framework. Period.
1. Polar bears numbers are up. So... your cycle theory isn't being born out by data. You might as well say that humans need dragons to survive and because all the dragons live in caves, that we must protect the caves to protect humanity least the dragons die. You have lots of hypothesis... the polar bear thing is something that if you looked into at all you'd not cite it again. It was credulous fool bait... and you clearly bit and still haven't done any research.
2. As to land becoming unsuitable, I actually just doubt your assessments of the future. I don't think you have a crystal ball. I don't think you have properly appreciated how anything actually works.
People like you were saying we'd run out of oil in 1918... and they were saying the same fucking thing every 10~20 years from then to now.
Most of these doom and gloom predictions especially when there is lots of money and power to be made by pushing it tend to turn out to be bullshit.
I don't buy that we're going NET lose farming land. If anything, I see us gaining it. Keep in mind, we have a lot of land in the far north... the world heats up... land that previously was not viable becomes viable. Might we lose land somewhere else? MAYBE. I frankly doubt that as well. Doubt we're in for any major changes in hundreds of years if not longer. And when those happen... so what... it won't happen all at once and we'll have new lands opening up at the same time in greater abundance. So whatever.
Feeding on them doesn't mean the same thing as "depending" on them. And even in the case that some do, I am prepared to see what happens.
Here you're going to make a lot of chicken little arguments about how if any species drops everything dies or something equally retarded. If this were the case then the world would have already gone into full ecological collapse because species at all levels of the food chain die all the time. We've killed more than a few of them ourselves and the systems are generally more than robust enough to handle it.
As to your "kid" comments after backing up nothing and saying that OH NOES IF THE MOSQUITOES DIE WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!! AAAAAHHHH AAAAHHHH AAHHHH AAHHH...
As to trend lines, I showed you two well respected papers that contradicted that statement. Take it back or I take your credibility. Choose.
As to the populations that are hurt being the ones we have no information on... then you don't have anything to back up your theory. Next issue.
As to everything we have requiring a very specific temperature range... we grow wheat from canada to the southern US. The temperature ranges between those places is significant. What is more, Rice and potatoes grow comfortably in widely varied climates... I can't speak to every crop. However, the important ones come in various strains. Some of those strains are viable in most climates on earth.
And given that we've blended ice fish DNA with wheat to provide the antifreeze properties of that species with wheat... I think we can safely conclude that if our survival were at stake, we could modify our food supply to function in any climate that other life on earth found viable.
You are not talking about monkeys, bub. You're talking to the Human Race. We've walked on the surface of the Moon. We've cracked the atom. We are recoding the language of life. I am not intimidated by this challenge. It is not a threat to my species.
As to your comment about the NOAA.... look at the graph again... is it going up or is it flat? Look at it.
As to me failing to understand that rising seas mean that what is required to survive storm surges in threatened areas changes... no... I understand that I think that should have been self evident in my statements. Attempting to find fault where there is none isn't going to help you.
Try to be right rather than trying to win. I am not a sophist... I am a stoic. I do not care who wins or loses... I would love to lose if that meant I learned something. But there are very few stoics that engage in these discussions. Its mostly sophists whining, lying, and wasting people's time with their pathetic attempts to win arguments rather than actually have a fucking clue. This is just a friendly suggestion. Do not try to win. Try to be right. And in being right... you will win. But if you ignore that element and just try to be right... you're going to fail.
As to me being upset... you insulted me and then when I rebut you say "you mad bro?"... if I am sounding upset it is because you're acting like a degenerate.
As to answering me with only facts... no, you responded with sad predigested propaganda about polar bears. You're pathetic.
... so a bear is intimidated by a squirrel in your "logic"?
because the bear is not intimidated by the squirrel... but if the squirrel attacks the bear... the bear will react.
This in your mind is intention to act and thus "worry"...... I don't know how to say this nicely... so I'll just say it... you're not smart enough to match wits with me... you're not smart enough to really insult me. It sort hits me the way the insult from a 4 year old would hit a grown man. It isn't meaningful.
I'm not saying this to be mean or hurt your feelings. I'm just letting you know... you are out of your depth when it comes to me at least. Go troll someone else. You're not going to get anywhere with me.
As to your non-answer of "scientists"... actually if you look at historical averages there was a trend line going UP before the modern era. So... not so much if you look at a full trend. Subtract the rise in temperature from the previous trend in temp increases and you're talking about an extremely tiny change if anything.
As to polar bears, their numbers are up. And the whole polar bear citation was ultimately based on non-polar bear experts taking photos of "a" dead polar bear and spinning up AGW theories on "a" dead polar bear. Do you have anything on the polar bears that says they're dying out? Because I'd love to see that. Literally anything. Hit me with your best shot. I'm going to show the debunk information on whatever you cite. Just FYI. I want to show you that your information on the issue is in error. Present me your information so I can destroy it, please.
As to it getting too hot for plants to grow... jungles are a lot hotter than most places and plants are pretty happy there... obviously. What are you basing this "too hot for agriculture" on? Obviously if the air fucking boils or something that will sterilize the planet but I don't think anyone outside the UFO theorists is suggesting that is happening.
That they haven't actually been stable. They've been going up pretty consistently for a long time.
The last 25,000 year one shows that we're in a plateau but that we've been going up in that for thousands of years.
And in the other graph you can see that sea level increases have been roughly consistent since the early 1800s which predates most of the CO2 releases.
So... my point is sustained.
As to taxes having to go to build sea walls... Or people relocate. Its happened before and will happen again. Presuming that a city that has stood on a given shore for a thousand years will always stand there is presumptuous. If that city wants to spend its own money to secure it from whatever that is its own business and problem. However, it is not the responsibility of people in cities that are not threatened by long term climate change to make unsustainable cities affordable.
Either sustain your city or abandon it. A great many places are unsustainable. How many times does Florida have to be bailed out because they build stupidly on parts of land you shouldn't build on?
First off, don't build right next to the fucking ocean in storm zones. In South America they are much better about this in that they put parks near the ocean so when the storm comes it messes with trees or something and doesn't destroy buildings.
Second, build with an appreciation for the fact that a storm will come and when it does that will mean the water is going to hit a given depth at given elevations. That means you either have to build seawalls or put your structures on stilts or something. Whatever you do... don't build the same way as someone might in a non-storm zone and then complain when the obvious happens.
Third, do not subsidize flood and hurricane insurance. This encourages people to build and live in places they cannot afford to live because they are asking other people to assume the liability when their property is destroyed. If you can't handle the liability it means you're either building in a place where you cannot afford to build or you're building in a manner that will not survive a storm. Either way... you're basically abusing the generosity of the rest of the country to subsidize an unaffordable life style.
As to how I would know what they're doing... Bullshit. Lets put up Leonardo DiCaprio's homes... he's been going on and on and on about climate change.
Okay, so apex predators can't survive a small temperature shift... give me an example. The polar bear example has been debunked heavily so I would caution you not to cite that one unless you want to insta lose that point.
As to temperature sensitive food chains lower down the system, give an example please. And keep in mind we've had temperature shifts like this in the past many time and we're still here.
As to economics, I am familiar with DYNAMIC systems that respond in real time to changing conditions. Are you? More adaptive species rely on diversified supply chains. Less diversified species rely on fewer or even singular supply chains. Extinctions happen. They have always happened and they will always happen. We all make bets on the future... every living thing. And sometimes we're wrong.
Humanity is highly diversified. And the more successful societies are more diversified than others. Basically all life on earth would have to die for humanity to die. So I'm not worried about the humans.
As to other species, you're going to have to be specific for me to care about the issue specifically. For example, if you cited mosquitoes are dying off... I would be happy about that. I don't like them as a species. They cause millions of humans to die with some frequency and spread harmful diseases. So I don't like them. Is there another species you'd like to cite that I'll feel more compassion towards? And keep in mind, that as a human being I will think of multiple solutions to a given problem. For example, you will push the notion that AGW is the problem and that the only solution will be to reduce CO2 emissions. To that, I will point out that the CO2 emissions are not actually what is killing anything but rather the theory that temperature changes that result from them cause the problem. To that end, I will look at other means of changing global temperature as being a more direct solution. This will bring on line geoengineering options. What is more, if the species I want to save is something that can be more easily saved through habitat conservation etc, then I'll do that instead. There is a lot of conflation on causes in environmental discussions. Species that are being threatened by habitat destruction are being conflated with species that are being threatened by temperature changes. That is logically invalid. You have to keep these variables separated and analyze them procedurally.
As to life as we know it... those are really big claims you're making that have not been substantiated by anyone. You're basically repeating highly dubious alarmist propaganda and it is not scientifically substantiated. You will fail if you use that as your thesis unless you're just here and now revealing scientific data that no one has ever seen before.
Did you say this? "In other news science is wrong"
Or did you say this? "In other news Slashdot is wrong"
Or maybe you said this? "I'm glad science is wrong"
Anyone can play this game, you talentless... zero ethics... shill.
Taking people out of context doesn't make you look smart. It just makes you look dishonest. If you want to take issue with what I said, then do that. But take issue with what I said in context rather than fucking stupid strawmen. That's honestly half of why your comment is so annoying... its just so fucking stupid. Any moron that actually read my post would see that your citation is illegitimate.
Be a better person next time. Either learn to be a competent sophist shithead... or maybe just maybe have some fucking standards and don't build your arguments on a foundation of deceit.
Your choice. But your last post read like one of those pathetic robberies where the robber gets over powered by the store owner's unarmed wife. Just pitiful.
Seriously... who is sitting in the middle of 17 below zero weather and going "this should really be a good 10 degrees colder"...
I know I know... Polar bears... To which I can only respond with a mixture of yawns and skepticism that the polar bears really can't handle things being slightly warmer given that they have in the past, they do just fine in the summer when it is dramatically warmer, and no one has yet found any polar bears that have suffered from heat exhaustion in their native habitat. So I'm calling bullshit on that score.
As to AGW issues in general... all things considered, I rather suspect that on balance, humans are going to be happier with a warmer world than a colder one.
Here someone might say "but the equator will get hotter too!"... except according to GW theory it won't actually. The poles will heat up a bit but the equator shouldn't move much.
Then someone might say "but the oceans will rise!"... I'm a bit dubious there as well. The oceans have been rising at a fair clip for thousands of years. The rate of rise doesn't appear to have changed remarkably. And even if did... and we got the full 60 meters or whatever... it wouldn't happen quickly. Human populations move around. I'm not seeing any of the AGW evangelists buying inland property and selling their beach houses. So I take all the doom and gloom out of such people as demonstrably insincere.
You didn't know what kind of solution I wanted when you said "if you really want a market solution". That was strike one.
Second, I never said anything in advocacy of municipal broadband. That was strike two.
Third, whether the government providing services makes a profit or not often doesn't stop competition IF that competition is allowed to exist. Look at the private healthcare companies in England and Canada. They exist despite being more expensive than walking in and paying nothing which is their competition. Strike three.
And you're gone right there. I know you want to sputtering on about something else as stupid and pathetic as your last comment. But you really should just stop embarrassing yourself. You're an idiot. You don't need to prove me any more right than you already did by continuing to be a dumb AC that proves that my position on ACs is generally fucking gold. Trust me. The case is about as solid as the laws of motion at this point.
To the contrary, I'm very happy to provide evidence. I just want YOU to commit to accepting valid data prior to presenting it. And I want that commitment in the form of you agreeing to accept a given type of information.
I know how people like you operate. If I offer evidence of any kind, you'll goal post move to invalidate the data. I want you to commit to a given type of information. And when I present it... I want to get what I deserve... which is to win.
If you won't commit to accept valid information, then any request on your part for information is insincere and a waste of my time.
Actually that was a reply to your statements about government owned broadband standing in the way of me as an ISP making money. The assumption on your part that was erroneous was that government ownership or control means companies can't make money in the industry. Often as not, the government uses industry partners, consultants, and contractors to do a lot of the work to say nothing of provide the equipment etc. So while I would prefer to have private ISPs as an option for anyone to use, and I would prefer people be able to bypass the ISPs entirely by running their own cable, saying that "MY" argument is all about money or that municipal ISPs which you think I'm advocating has anything to do with anything... I can't help you.
You're so busy crafting strawmen that we're not even having the same discussion anymore.
I think I'm just going tell you to give me back my jacket and then tell you to fuck off.
I don't care if I have a market solution or not. What I want is right of way of cables. I want to run my own cable or for anyone else to run their own cable. This is something you couldn't have known. You assumed what I wanted and went with it. You never asked me.
As to reading comprehension... we've already addressed your lack of it... and its sort of funny that you don't realize how badly you've lost on that point.
He said he was okay with that link, but it was conveniently not relevant to the discussion so his validation of it doesn't really matter.
I then asked for specific parameters that could be applied to other sources and he didn't respond.
So... no. You just whiffed.
What is more, the nature of your comments to me is further validating my hypothesis that you were not seriously asking for questions but just being a trollish contrarian. Which is okay... I spotted you instantly and you thus far have wasted none of my time getting sources that you'll just ignore because what you really want to do is sit there like a jackass and say "nuh uh!"... which is fine. I'll respond with as much energy to say "uh huh"...
So anything better than anecdotal evidence would be accepted?
Define what that means. Do you need a scientific study or would merely a lot of anecdotes be acceptable?
See, anecdotes are generally rejected because they're cherry picked and a few outliers can be misrepresented as the norm. However, a lot of them all at once are generally considered more valid because its harder to cherry pick with lots of examples.
I'm just trying to nail down what you're going to accept. Because my experience is that when people are wrong... like you are... that requests for evidence are very frequently a stalling tactic. I'm not wasting my time finding evidence for you if you're just going to come up with a bullshit reason to reject it. So... I want to know, that if I go to the effort to actually prove you wrong... that you're going to eat your sword on this issue.
if you won't... then there's really no point in me going to any trouble at all.
So what would you accept as evidence? Anecdotal evidence is acceptable? Really? Lock yourself down to what you'll accept. I am tired going through the effort only to have someone arbitrarily change the standards so that the last reference doesn't work. Cite the terms.
Actually SDI had many methods. The point was to stop ICBMs.
As to it working, the development never stopped. That was my point. I didn't say they deployed a working system. Don't goal post with me... it is a waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually none of them specified what they'd accept.
I heard one say that ars technica was okay... does that mean only ars technica is okay or what? they did not commit to anything beyond that.
I heard another say that anything that wasn't anacotal would be acceptable. I then pointed out that the line between anacotal and non-anacotal is literally the number of citations. Something that is anacotal as a single example becomes data and evidence if you have lots of the same report. And then you have other issues with that.
But I got no framework for what was and was not acceptable actually despite asking for that repeatedly. And until I get that, I'm not going to waste my time to get evidence because you can still goal post move.
You've missed the point.
I want YOU to be FORCED by your own words to accept my data when I present it. No IFs ANDS or BUTs.
And that's what you're going to do if I don't lock you down before I do it. I know it. You know it. So you've failed to fool me.
Here are your options.
1. Present a framework of acceptance and then lose when I fill it.
2. Keep pretending you provided one even though both of us know that is a lie.
3. Have the discussion without asking for information you won't accept.
Choose. You will not get me to waste even two seconds of my time getting information without a framework. Period.
1. Polar bears numbers are up. So... your cycle theory isn't being born out by data. You might as well say that humans need dragons to survive and because all the dragons live in caves, that we must protect the caves to protect humanity least the dragons die. You have lots of hypothesis... the polar bear thing is something that if you looked into at all you'd not cite it again. It was credulous fool bait... and you clearly bit and still haven't done any research.
2. As to land becoming unsuitable, I actually just doubt your assessments of the future. I don't think you have a crystal ball. I don't think you have properly appreciated how anything actually works.
People like you were saying we'd run out of oil in 1918... and they were saying the same fucking thing every 10~20 years from then to now.
Most of these doom and gloom predictions especially when there is lots of money and power to be made by pushing it tend to turn out to be bullshit.
I don't buy that we're going NET lose farming land. If anything, I see us gaining it. Keep in mind, we have a lot of land in the far north... the world heats up... land that previously was not viable becomes viable. Might we lose land somewhere else? MAYBE. I frankly doubt that as well. Doubt we're in for any major changes in hundreds of years if not longer. And when those happen... so what... it won't happen all at once and we'll have new lands opening up at the same time in greater abundance. So whatever.
Feeding on them doesn't mean the same thing as "depending" on them. And even in the case that some do, I am prepared to see what happens.
Here you're going to make a lot of chicken little arguments about how if any species drops everything dies or something equally retarded. If this were the case then the world would have already gone into full ecological collapse because species at all levels of the food chain die all the time. We've killed more than a few of them ourselves and the systems are generally more than robust enough to handle it.
As to your "kid" comments after backing up nothing and saying that OH NOES IF THE MOSQUITOES DIE WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!! AAAAAHHHH AAAAHHHH AAHHHH AAHHH...
Try again. This time with less stupid.
As to trend lines, I showed you two well respected papers that contradicted that statement. Take it back or I take your credibility. Choose.
As to the populations that are hurt being the ones we have no information on... then you don't have anything to back up your theory. Next issue.
As to everything we have requiring a very specific temperature range... we grow wheat from canada to the southern US. The temperature ranges between those places is significant. What is more, Rice and potatoes grow comfortably in widely varied climates... I can't speak to every crop. However, the important ones come in various strains. Some of those strains are viable in most climates on earth.
And given that we've blended ice fish DNA with wheat to provide the antifreeze properties of that species with wheat... I think we can safely conclude that if our survival were at stake, we could modify our food supply to function in any climate that other life on earth found viable.
You are not talking about monkeys, bub. You're talking to the Human Race. We've walked on the surface of the Moon. We've cracked the atom. We are recoding the language of life. I am not intimidated by this challenge. It is not a threat to my species.
As to your comment about the NOAA.... look at the graph again... is it going up or is it flat? Look at it.
As to me failing to understand that rising seas mean that what is required to survive storm surges in threatened areas changes... no... I understand that I think that should have been self evident in my statements. Attempting to find fault where there is none isn't going to help you.
Try to be right rather than trying to win. I am not a sophist... I am a stoic. I do not care who wins or loses... I would love to lose if that meant I learned something. But there are very few stoics that engage in these discussions. Its mostly sophists whining, lying, and wasting people's time with their pathetic attempts to win arguments rather than actually have a fucking clue. This is just a friendly suggestion. Do not try to win. Try to be right. And in being right... you will win. But if you ignore that element and just try to be right... you're going to fail.
As to me being upset... you insulted me and then when I rebut you say "you mad bro?"... if I am sounding upset it is because you're acting like a degenerate.
As to answering me with only facts... no, you responded with sad predigested propaganda about polar bears. You're pathetic.
... so a bear is intimidated by a squirrel in your "logic"?
because the bear is not intimidated by the squirrel... but if the squirrel attacks the bear... the bear will react.
This in your mind is intention to act and thus "worry"... ... I don't know how to say this nicely... so I'll just say it... you're not smart enough to match wits with me... you're not smart enough to really insult me. It sort hits me the way the insult from a 4 year old would hit a grown man. It isn't meaningful.
I'm not saying this to be mean or hurt your feelings. I'm just letting you know... you are out of your depth when it comes to me at least. Go troll someone else. You're not going to get anywhere with me.
As to your non-answer of "scientists"... actually if you look at historical averages there was a trend line going UP before the modern era. So... not so much if you look at a full trend. Subtract the rise in temperature from the previous trend in temp increases and you're talking about an extremely tiny change if anything.
As to polar bears, their numbers are up. And the whole polar bear citation was ultimately based on non-polar bear experts taking photos of "a" dead polar bear and spinning up AGW theories on "a" dead polar bear. Do you have anything on the polar bears that says they're dying out? Because I'd love to see that. Literally anything. Hit me with your best shot. I'm going to show the debunk information on whatever you cite. Just FYI. I want to show you that your information on the issue is in error. Present me your information so I can destroy it, please.
As to it getting too hot for plants to grow... jungles are a lot hotter than most places and plants are pretty happy there... obviously. What are you basing this "too hot for agriculture" on? Obviously if the air fucking boils or something that will sterilize the planet but I don't think anyone outside the UFO theorists is suggesting that is happening.
As to the oceans being stable prior to the modern period.
http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Chang...
You can see from that and this:
http://academics.eckerd.edu/in...
That they haven't actually been stable. They've been going up pretty consistently for a long time.
The last 25,000 year one shows that we're in a plateau but that we've been going up in that for thousands of years.
And in the other graph you can see that sea level increases have been roughly consistent since the early 1800s which predates most of the CO2 releases.
So... my point is sustained.
As to taxes having to go to build sea walls... Or people relocate. Its happened before and will happen again. Presuming that a city that has stood on a given shore for a thousand years will always stand there is presumptuous. If that city wants to spend its own money to secure it from whatever that is its own business and problem. However, it is not the responsibility of people in cities that are not threatened by long term climate change to make unsustainable cities affordable.
Either sustain your city or abandon it. A great many places are unsustainable. How many times does Florida have to be bailed out because they build stupidly on parts of land you shouldn't build on?
First off, don't build right next to the fucking ocean in storm zones. In South America they are much better about this in that they put parks near the ocean so when the storm comes it messes with trees or something and doesn't destroy buildings.
Second, build with an appreciation for the fact that a storm will come and when it does that will mean the water is going to hit a given depth at given elevations. That means you either have to build seawalls or put your structures on stilts or something. Whatever you do... don't build the same way as someone might in a non-storm zone and then complain when the obvious happens.
Third, do not subsidize flood and hurricane insurance. This encourages people to build and live in places they cannot afford to live because they are asking other people to assume the liability when their property is destroyed. If you can't handle the liability it means you're either building in a place where you cannot afford to build or you're building in a manner that will not survive a storm. Either way... you're basically abusing the generosity of the rest of the country to subsidize an unaffordable life style.
As to how I would know what they're doing... Bullshit. Lets put up Leonardo DiCaprio's homes... he's been going on and on and on about climate change.
This is his house ap
And I can return the favor... I'm not worried because I'm not intimidated.
Did you have something specific you wanted to roll out or... is this another null comment by an AC?
Okay, so apex predators can't survive a small temperature shift... give me an example. The polar bear example has been debunked heavily so I would caution you not to cite that one unless you want to insta lose that point.
As to temperature sensitive food chains lower down the system, give an example please. And keep in mind we've had temperature shifts like this in the past many time and we're still here.
As to economics, I am familiar with DYNAMIC systems that respond in real time to changing conditions. Are you? More adaptive species rely on diversified supply chains. Less diversified species rely on fewer or even singular supply chains. Extinctions happen. They have always happened and they will always happen. We all make bets on the future... every living thing. And sometimes we're wrong.
Humanity is highly diversified. And the more successful societies are more diversified than others. Basically all life on earth would have to die for humanity to die. So I'm not worried about the humans.
As to other species, you're going to have to be specific for me to care about the issue specifically. For example, if you cited mosquitoes are dying off... I would be happy about that. I don't like them as a species. They cause millions of humans to die with some frequency and spread harmful diseases. So I don't like them. Is there another species you'd like to cite that I'll feel more compassion towards? And keep in mind, that as a human being I will think of multiple solutions to a given problem. For example, you will push the notion that AGW is the problem and that the only solution will be to reduce CO2 emissions. To that, I will point out that the CO2 emissions are not actually what is killing anything but rather the theory that temperature changes that result from them cause the problem. To that end, I will look at other means of changing global temperature as being a more direct solution. This will bring on line geoengineering options. What is more, if the species I want to save is something that can be more easily saved through habitat conservation etc, then I'll do that instead. There is a lot of conflation on causes in environmental discussions. Species that are being threatened by habitat destruction are being conflated with species that are being threatened by temperature changes. That is logically invalid. You have to keep these variables separated and analyze them procedurally.
As to life as we know it... those are really big claims you're making that have not been substantiated by anyone. You're basically repeating highly dubious alarmist propaganda and it is not scientifically substantiated. You will fail if you use that as your thesis unless you're just here and now revealing scientific data that no one has ever seen before.
... you really can't be this stupid.
Let me offer option 3. Immediately after your misleading citation, I said this:
"The oceans have been rising at a fair clip for thousands of years."
So... I obviously know the oceans have been rising due to changes in climate... idiot.
Did you say this?
"In other news science is wrong"
Or did you say this?
"In other news Slashdot is wrong"
Or maybe you said this?
"I'm glad science is wrong"
Anyone can play this game, you talentless... zero ethics... shill.
Taking people out of context doesn't make you look smart. It just makes you look dishonest. If you want to take issue with what I said, then do that. But take issue with what I said in context rather than fucking stupid strawmen. That's honestly half of why your comment is so annoying... its just so fucking stupid. Any moron that actually read my post would see that your citation is illegitimate.
Be a better person next time. Either learn to be a competent sophist shithead... or maybe just maybe have some fucking standards and don't build your arguments on a foundation of deceit.
Your choice. But your last post read like one of those pathetic robberies where the robber gets over powered by the store owner's unarmed wife. Just pitiful.
Seriously... who is sitting in the middle of 17 below zero weather and going "this should really be a good 10 degrees colder"...
I know I know... Polar bears... To which I can only respond with a mixture of yawns and skepticism that the polar bears really can't handle things being slightly warmer given that they have in the past, they do just fine in the summer when it is dramatically warmer, and no one has yet found any polar bears that have suffered from heat exhaustion in their native habitat. So I'm calling bullshit on that score.
As to AGW issues in general... all things considered, I rather suspect that on balance, humans are going to be happier with a warmer world than a colder one.
Here someone might say "but the equator will get hotter too!"... except according to GW theory it won't actually. The poles will heat up a bit but the equator shouldn't move much.
Then someone might say "but the oceans will rise!"... I'm a bit dubious there as well. The oceans have been rising at a fair clip for thousands of years. The rate of rise doesn't appear to have changed remarkably. And even if did... and we got the full 60 meters or whatever... it wouldn't happen quickly. Human populations move around. I'm not seeing any of the AGW evangelists buying inland property and selling their beach houses. So I take all the doom and gloom out of such people as demonstrably insincere.
You didn't know what kind of solution I wanted when you said "if you really want a market solution". That was strike one.
Second, I never said anything in advocacy of municipal broadband. That was strike two.
Third, whether the government providing services makes a profit or not often doesn't stop competition IF that competition is allowed to exist. Look at the private healthcare companies in England and Canada. They exist despite being more expensive than walking in and paying nothing which is their competition. Strike three.
And you're gone right there. I know you want to sputtering on about something else as stupid and pathetic as your last comment. But you really should just stop embarrassing yourself. You're an idiot. You don't need to prove me any more right than you already did by continuing to be a dumb AC that proves that my position on ACs is generally fucking gold. Trust me. The case is about as solid as the laws of motion at this point.
Enough.
To the contrary, I'm very happy to provide evidence. I just want YOU to commit to accepting valid data prior to presenting it. And I want that commitment in the form of you agreeing to accept a given type of information.
I know how people like you operate. If I offer evidence of any kind, you'll goal post move to invalidate the data. I want you to commit to a given type of information. And when I present it... I want to get what I deserve... which is to win.
If you won't commit to accept valid information, then any request on your part for information is insincere and a waste of my time.
Actually that was a reply to your statements about government owned broadband standing in the way of me as an ISP making money. The assumption on your part that was erroneous was that government ownership or control means companies can't make money in the industry. Often as not, the government uses industry partners, consultants, and contractors to do a lot of the work to say nothing of provide the equipment etc. So while I would prefer to have private ISPs as an option for anyone to use, and I would prefer people be able to bypass the ISPs entirely by running their own cable, saying that "MY" argument is all about money or that municipal ISPs which you think I'm advocating has anything to do with anything... I can't help you.
You're so busy crafting strawmen that we're not even having the same discussion anymore.
I think I'm just going tell you to give me back my jacket and then tell you to fuck off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I didn't. That was your strawman.
Your rebuttal is a nonsequitor.
I asked for criteria for a source and you dodged. Then you dodged again. Then you dodged again.
THEN I insulted you because you keep dodging.
Then you started strawmanning to this free market vs municipal argument which is irrelevant because I didn't advocate for either.
You're a clown.
I don't care if I have a market solution or not. What I want is right of way of cables. I want to run my own cable or for anyone else to run their own cable. This is something you couldn't have known. You assumed what I wanted and went with it. You never asked me.
As to reading comprehension... we've already addressed your lack of it... and its sort of funny that you don't realize how badly you've lost on that point.
If you're not arguing with me, then you agree with me.
So why did you start arguing with me in the first place?
And as to citations, I asked you cite what you'd accept.
But whatever. I saw everything you wrote and I am not going to be derailed.
Actually I didn't.
He said he was okay with that link, but it was conveniently not relevant to the discussion so his validation of it doesn't really matter.
I then asked for specific parameters that could be applied to other sources and he didn't respond.
So... no. You just whiffed.
What is more, the nature of your comments to me is further validating my hypothesis that you were not seriously asking for questions but just being a trollish contrarian. Which is okay... I spotted you instantly and you thus far have wasted none of my time getting sources that you'll just ignore because what you really want to do is sit there like a jackass and say "nuh uh!"... which is fine. I'll respond with as much energy to say "uh huh"...
Suck it, troll. Suck it long and suck it hard.
Quote yourself to show where you told me what type of source you'd accept and I'll admit you're right.
If you don't... I'm going to rack up one more point for me.
Hit me with your best shot, chump.
So anything better than anecdotal evidence would be accepted?
Define what that means. Do you need a scientific study or would merely a lot of anecdotes be acceptable?
See, anecdotes are generally rejected because they're cherry picked and a few outliers can be misrepresented as the norm. However, a lot of them all at once are generally considered more valid because its harder to cherry pick with lots of examples.
I'm just trying to nail down what you're going to accept. Because my experience is that when people are wrong... like you are... that requests for evidence are very frequently a stalling tactic. I'm not wasting my time finding evidence for you if you're just going to come up with a bullshit reason to reject it. So... I want to know, that if I go to the effort to actually prove you wrong... that you're going to eat your sword on this issue.
if you won't... then there's really no point in me going to any trouble at all.
So, as predicted, the fuckwit ACs won't offer an type of source they'd accept.
Your bad faith in the discussion was predicted and your behavior has validated my wisdom in this matter.
You morons are so predictable... Suck it.
So what would you accept as evidence? Anecdotal evidence is acceptable? Really? Lock yourself down to what you'll accept. I am tired going through the effort only to have someone arbitrarily change the standards so that the last reference doesn't work. Cite the terms.
Actually SDI had many methods. The point was to stop ICBMs.
As to it working, the development never stopped. That was my point. I didn't say they deployed a working system. Don't goal post with me... it is a waste of time.
Look at the advances we've made in active missile intercepts. The project never stopped.