The only reason Bush cared about 9/11 was it gave him an excuse to get Saddam. He had a hard-on for getting revenge on the guy who tried to assassinate his father.
In his first national security briefing after taking office he asked "How can I get Saddam?" One of the first questions asked after 9/11 was "Can we use this to get Saddam?"
It took another several months of leaking talking points to the New York Times, but eventually he got what he wanted.
And in the process it only cost the country several trillion dollars, several thousand American lives, a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives, destabilized three countries, and created a deeper quagmire than already existed in the region.
In the list of bad things to inherit from a previous President, this pretty much takes the cake.
theyre saying It's not inherent to the process, so not every well can or will cause contamination, but it is possible, so there are risks that it could happen, and it has in some places. they're cutting a path down the middle of the two extremes with their report.
The state of Oklahoma went from an average of ~2 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater per year, to almost 600 last year, and already nearly 300 this year (projected to reach almost 1000 this year). These are not minor quakes that no one cares about.
I myself live there, and a section of my brick siding collapsed a few months ago as a result of once of these "undetectable" quakes.
They are not minor. They are causing damage. They are directly attributable to a particular human activity.
Ergo, the humans performing that activity are responsible and owe a debt to the persons who have suffered damages. Except that getting restitution is nearly impossible, it being a david and goliath, only goliath has an army of lawyers and a lot more financial resources.
and its funny you mention courts and regulation, since they're pretty much in the pocket of the oil and gas industry in Oklahoma and Texas. the legislature too. only recently was the Oklahoma geologist in charge of studying the link allowed to even say it was linked....mostly because it was finally revealed that a fracking company owner who funded his job personally "requested" he be "cautious" about what he said in any of his official reports.
and did I mention that they made it illegal in OK for local municipalities to restrict fracking? or that there is legislation proposed to grant the industry immunity from damage claims resulting from these quakes?
you brought up why Europe shouldn't be considered superior, but its rather unfair to limit that comparison to a single metric.
who says I need to feel superior? I simply want to get the best bang for my buck from where I choose to live (btw im not European). also, I don't feel the need to feel superior, I already am, IIDSSM.
I have a thermometer in Central Park (New York City), under a tree surrounded by other trees, with 40 years of data.
I have another in Pheonix, Arizona, on top of a 50 foot pole in direct sunlight, also with 40 years of data.
I have a 3rd in Redding, CA. It used to be exposed to the predominant wind flow on top of a 10,000ft mountain, under a sunshade, but was moved to inside a shed at the local airport, more than 6000ft lower. Also, it was changed from a Simpson PRC-6000 to a Fluke PRT-20 when it was moved.
So you tell me, how am I supposed to align them to the same baseline so that their measurements are scientifically and statistically useful?
The person making the claims that researchers are "massaging data" is a person who either doesn't understand that local conditions of the sensor installation can affect the data recorded, or that its desirable to have a common baseline to make the measurements scientifically/statistically compatible, or both. Usually both.
the daily caller is unaware that different measurement methods result in different readings. but then, this is old news.
every time they talk about this, they (as well as most other unscientifically educated deniers) are reminded that a sensor in the sun an inch away from a sensor in the shade will read a higher temperature, yet neither reading is "wrong".
and therefore corrections are made to align each reading to the same baseline based on the local conditions, sensor type, methodology, and every other factor that may impact a reading, all of which is also recorded along with the measurement precisely for that purpose.
its not calibration like you are thinking (I am a calibration technician), ie, metrology (NOT meteorology!).
the buoys weren't "wrong".
its not that the buoys were miscalibrated as to the accuracy of the instruments (metrology).
its that the dataset as a whole was "miscalibrated" as relates to the inherent differences in results from different methodologies of measurement. it's a statistical error, not a metrological one.
you can measure the same location in one of 3 typical ways: -buoys -engine intake -bucket (ie, drop a bucket, haul it up, and measure the water inside)
Each has its own inherent (built in) factors that cause the same readings from the same place at the same time, but taken with different methods, to measure slightly differently. The corrections to the dataset seek to remove and cancel out these differences.
and when the measurement is taken they don't JUST write down the reading taken, but the local conditions at the time (sunny? cloudy? windy?), the type of measurement taken and method used, the instrument used, the location of the instrument (on a hill? in the shade?), etc. and all of that additional information is recorded PRECISELY BECAUSE of the desire to eliminate inherent differences so that every measurement conforms to the same baseline.
you mean the one that's being misreported on by Fox and other "news" sources in bed with the industry? let me guess what you think the report says....your tone is a large enough indicator on that score.
in fact, i'll bet you only read the initial headlines, since retracted, that stated "EPA says fracking is safe" and variations on that theme. you definitely never bothered to read the whole article, or to find the report itself and peruse it.
so let me help you out. the report that states, and I quote:
From our assessment, we conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources. These mechanisms include water withdrawals in times of, or in areas with, low water availability; spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water; fracturing directly into underground drinking water resources; below ground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.
They cut a fine line between saying it has "no effect" and it "always has an effect". they say it can have an effect, and be harmful, but it mostly localized right now, rather systemic (ie, inherent) to the activity.
you are now about twice as informed and intelligent as you were previously.
decided to bring the khallow sock puppet out of retirement, eh shill? mmmm'k.
You do realize that it's unlikely that anyone alive now will have to move due to rising sea levels?
Except those who live near the sea. It's not just about when seas reach levels 10ft higher than today, though that seems to be your underlying assumption. It's about storm surges. The modest amount of existing amount of sea level rise caused, during Hurricane Sandy, 50% more water volume to surge and flood into major population centers such as New York City than otherwise would have. That's pretty significant.
this is a polite way of saying "you're completely wrong and don't know what you are talking about".
Nobody has any evidence that we're close to where this is a significant problem (particularly with the more important problems we have likely to trigger die-offs first).
Except for the whole "half of earth's wildlife has died off in the past 40 years" thing.
A little understanding goes a long way to dispelling and preventing the spread of myths and misinformation: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Even more, playing devil’s advocate, the scientists tried to force their data to show them a hiatus; they redid the calculations starting in 1998, as so many deniers have done. The result? The warming from 1998 – 2014 is 0.106 C per decade. It’s still there.
The corrections they applied have to do with the way sea surface temperatures were taken; the method has changed over time, and that introduces biases into the data. The good thing though is that new methods, new understanding of the nature of data measurement, allow scientists to go back and re-examine older data and apply corrections to it.
Different measurement methods have their own inherent biases. They went back through the data AND ITS SOURCES and found that some of the data believed to be from buoys was from engine intakes, and some from intakes was from buoys, and some was from the really old fashioned method of "haul up a bucket of water and measure it".
All corrections are about canceling out those inherent biases so that everything starts from the same baseline.
out of curiosity, how does encryption availability stack up against better cheaper and more available internet, cheaper better healthcare, higher wages, better workplace protections, and free education?
except the conservatives are trying to kill libraries too, because "taxes" and "socialism" and again, that same resistance to government doing ANYTHING for the public. the same resistance that hass them opposing the existence public schools.
Please. the government isn't even close to living outside its means. Extreme deficits only came about because politicians started to insist on cutting taxes. This country had no trouble paying for everything the government did, even while providing almost precisely the same services and social programs we currently do. and the economy and the average citizen not only was doing fine, but was more prosperous than he is today, even with the higher tax burden.
also lets not forget, the area of the planet is 196.9 million sq miles. meaning 8 of my mega installations comprise only 0.074% of the planet's surface.
Slashdot Mirror
my mod stalker strikes again.
Canada, the UK, and pretty much every other advanced nation in the world would like to have a word with you about the definition of "possible".
The US is pretty much the only exception amongst it's peers in this regard, and not in a good way.
The only reason Bush cared about 9/11 was it gave him an excuse to get Saddam.
He had a hard-on for getting revenge on the guy who tried to assassinate his father.
In his first national security briefing after taking office he asked "How can I get Saddam?"
One of the first questions asked after 9/11 was "Can we use this to get Saddam?"
It took another several months of leaking talking points to the New York Times, but eventually he got what he wanted.
And in the process it only cost the country several trillion dollars, several thousand American lives, a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives, destabilized three countries, and created a deeper quagmire than already existed in the region.
In the list of bad things to inherit from a previous President, this pretty much takes the cake.
If that's your view then you have fallen victim to misinformation about two Presidencies.
again: still not trolling.
but go ahead and try to bury facts with your sock puppets.
quoting the actual report and what it actually says is not trolling.
"widespread, systemic"
theyre saying It's not inherent to the process, so not every well can or will cause contamination, but it is possible, so there are risks that it could happen, and it has in some places. they're cutting a path down the middle of the two extremes with their report.
"can't be felt"
"ignores magnitude"
The state of Oklahoma went from an average of ~2 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater per year, to almost 600 last year, and already nearly 300 this year (projected to reach almost 1000 this year). These are not minor quakes that no one cares about.
These are causing damage:
http://www.earthworksaction.or...
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/feat...
I myself live there, and a section of my brick siding collapsed a few months ago as a result of once of these "undetectable" quakes.
They are not minor.
They are causing damage.
They are directly attributable to a particular human activity.
Ergo, the humans performing that activity are responsible and owe a debt to the persons who have suffered damages. Except that getting restitution is nearly impossible, it being a david and goliath, only goliath has an army of lawyers and a lot more financial resources.
and its funny you mention courts and regulation, since they're pretty much in the pocket of the oil and gas industry in Oklahoma and Texas. the legislature too. only recently was the Oklahoma geologist in charge of studying the link allowed to even say it was linked....mostly because it was finally revealed that a fracking company owner who funded his job personally "requested" he be "cautious" about what he said in any of his official reports.
and did I mention that they made it illegal in OK for local municipalities to restrict fracking?
or that there is legislation proposed to grant the industry immunity from damage claims resulting from these quakes?
you're a fool, a shill, and a troll.
people of tomorrow who probably will be smarter, more knowledgeable, and healthier.
Not if they drink that water
There will be grown ups. Let them take care of these minor problems of tomorrow while we take care of the serious problems of today.
Translation: "Let them cleanup the world that we jacked up. It's not our responsibility."
I really hope you get paid for all this trolling.
ah.
must be like the whole "right to work...for less" thing.
you brought up why Europe shouldn't be considered superior, but its rather unfair to limit that comparison to a single metric.
who says I need to feel superior? I simply want to get the best bang for my buck from where I choose to live (btw im not European). also, I don't feel the need to feel superior, I already am, IIDSSM.
I have a thermometer in Central Park (New York City), under a tree surrounded by other trees, with 40 years of data.
I have another in Pheonix, Arizona, on top of a 50 foot pole in direct sunlight, also with 40 years of data.
I have a 3rd in Redding, CA. It used to be exposed to the predominant wind flow on top of a 10,000ft mountain, under a sunshade, but was moved to inside a shed at the local airport, more than 6000ft lower. Also, it was changed from a Simpson PRC-6000 to a Fluke PRT-20 when it was moved.
So you tell me, how am I supposed to align them to the same baseline so that their measurements are scientifically and statistically useful?
The person making the claims that researchers are "massaging data" is a person who either doesn't understand that local conditions of the sensor installation can affect the data recorded, or that its desirable to have a common baseline to make the measurements scientifically/statistically compatible, or both. Usually both.
the daily caller is unaware that different measurement methods result in different readings.
but then, this is old news.
every time they talk about this, they (as well as most other unscientifically educated deniers) are reminded that a sensor in the sun an inch away from a sensor in the shade will read a higher temperature, yet neither reading is "wrong".
and therefore corrections are made to align each reading to the same baseline based on the local conditions, sensor type, methodology, and every other factor that may impact a reading, all of which is also recorded along with the measurement precisely for that purpose.
its not calibration like you are thinking (I am a calibration technician), ie, metrology (NOT meteorology!).
the buoys weren't "wrong".
its not that the buoys were miscalibrated as to the accuracy of the instruments (metrology).
its that the dataset as a whole was "miscalibrated" as relates to the inherent differences in results from different methodologies of measurement. it's a statistical error, not a metrological one.
you can measure the same location in one of 3 typical ways:
-buoys
-engine intake
-bucket (ie, drop a bucket, haul it up, and measure the water inside)
Each has its own inherent (built in) factors that cause the same readings from the same place at the same time, but taken with different methods, to measure slightly differently. The corrections to the dataset seek to remove and cancel out these differences.
and when the measurement is taken they don't JUST write down the reading taken, but the local conditions at the time (sunny? cloudy? windy?), the type of measurement taken and method used, the instrument used, the location of the instrument (on a hill? in the shade?), etc. and all of that additional information is recorded PRECISELY BECAUSE of the desire to eliminate inherent differences so that every measurement conforms to the same baseline.
you mean the one that's being misreported on by Fox and other "news" sources in bed with the industry?
let me guess what you think the report says....your tone is a large enough indicator on that score.
in fact, i'll bet you only read the initial headlines, since retracted, that stated "EPA says fracking is safe" and variations on that theme. you definitely never bothered to read the whole article, or to find the report itself and peruse it.
so let me help you out.
the report that states, and I quote:
From our assessment, we conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources. These mechanisms include water withdrawals in times of, or in areas with, low water availability; spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water; fracturing directly into underground drinking water resources; below ground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.
They cut a fine line between saying it has "no effect" and it "always has an effect".
they say it can have an effect, and be harmful, but it mostly localized right now, rather systemic (ie, inherent) to the activity.
you are now about twice as informed and intelligent as you were previously.
decided to bring the khallow sock puppet out of retirement, eh shill?
mmmm'k.
You do realize that it's unlikely that anyone alive now will have to move due to rising sea levels?
Except those who live near the sea. It's not just about when seas reach levels 10ft higher than today, though that seems to be your underlying assumption. It's about storm surges. The modest amount of existing amount of sea level rise caused, during Hurricane Sandy, 50% more water volume to surge and flood into major population centers such as New York City than otherwise would have. That's pretty significant.
this is a polite way of saying "you're completely wrong and don't know what you are talking about".
Nobody has any evidence that we're close to where this is a significant problem (particularly with the more important problems we have likely to trigger die-offs first).
Except for the whole "half of earth's wildlife has died off in the past 40 years" thing.
A little understanding goes a long way to dispelling and preventing the spread of myths and misinformation: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Even more, playing devil’s advocate, the scientists tried to force their data to show them a hiatus; they redid the calculations starting in 1998, as so many deniers have done. The result? The warming from 1998 – 2014 is 0.106 C per decade. It’s still there.
The corrections they applied have to do with the way sea surface temperatures were taken; the method has changed over time, and that introduces biases into the data. The good thing though is that new methods, new understanding of the nature of data measurement, allow scientists to go back and re-examine older data and apply corrections to it.
Different measurement methods have their own inherent biases. They went back through the data AND ITS SOURCES and found that some of the data believed to be from buoys was from engine intakes, and some from intakes was from buoys, and some was from the really old fashioned method of "haul up a bucket of water and measure it".
All corrections are about canceling out those inherent biases so that everything starts from the same baseline.
out of curiosity, how does encryption availability stack up against better cheaper and more available internet, cheaper better healthcare, higher wages, better workplace protections, and free education?
i dont know what states youre talking about, but in the United States it is legal to possess a copy of a work you own.
no, its not, but dont let your lack of education stop you. do go on.
bullshit mods abusing points again.
its not flamebait, its not trolling, however the GP, who claims youre a bad person if you are poor, very much is.
however in todays world you do need internet to search and apply for most jobs.
even walmart directs applicants to go online to apply.
except the conservatives are trying to kill libraries too, because "taxes" and "socialism" and again, that same resistance to government doing ANYTHING for the public. the same resistance that hass them opposing the existence public schools.
Please. the government isn't even close to living outside its means. Extreme deficits only came about because politicians started to insist on cutting taxes. This country had no trouble paying for everything the government did, even while providing almost precisely the same services and social programs we currently do. and the economy and the average citizen not only was doing fine, but was more prosperous than he is today, even with the higher tax burden.
also lets not forget, the area of the planet is 196.9 million sq miles.
meaning 8 of my mega installations comprise only 0.074% of the planet's surface.