Questioning....because you don't like it, or especially for political reasons, which is the number one reason for these cranks who say they have an equal right to their "opinion"... is not sufficient.
Don't tell me what I think when I keep telling you what I think.
Just because you CAN question something doesn't mean your theory is just as valid as the prevailing theory with tons of data to back it up. Your new theory can only overturn the prevailing mountain of thought if it is sufficiently rigorous. If it is not, you're just a crank. If it is...if it can and does overturn the prevailing consensus....then it becomes the new consensus (over time).
but everytime it has happened, it hasn't happened just because the person was a crank, but because he was able to sufficiently back it up, sufficiently defend it, and show its superiority. and that is the problem with deniers, and why they are cranks: they have nothing.
No, it's not suddenly real. It's a misconception on the part of deniers.
Tempereatures were still rising, simply at a lower rate.
The process of taking a GLOBAL, YEARLY average of LOCAL, DAILY (even hourly) observations masks the extreme variation around the world, as we see more higher highs and lower lows around the world, depending on local condition.
The overall state of being has still been a net gain of energy to the system (where system = Earth).
That's why when deniers talk about a "pause" or "hiatus" we shake our heads and say "you poor dumb non-mathmatical idiot". That's why we say the "hiatus doesn't exist"....because the hiatus as the deniers try to paint DOESN'T EXIST. they fundamentally misunderstand and misstate the concept, and try to use their flawed concept to back their completely flase claim that "GW isn't real".
the HTF is funded solely by the gas tax. there's not enough money in the HTF cause they regularly steal frm it to pay for other things. of course, as it also happens, even if they totally stopped raiding the fund, it is STILL insufficient to meet needs. thus due to insufficienct funds basic maintenance, let alone new construction, is underfunded and underperformed. the only solution is to increase the funding available. but they flatly refuse to stop raiding the fund. and they flatly refuse to increase the funding mechanism, ie, the gas tax.
right before they adjourned for their vacation a couple weeks ago, they did pass a new "infrastructure bill"...that puts a small amount of money into the fund temporarily. the problem is, its not coming form taxes. its not coming from other funds. its a loan from certain private businesses. which will be repaid to those businesses in a few years time. with interest. so they literally get to increase their profits with tax dollars paid directly to them by the government.
Thus Congress managed to both kick the can down the road, and make their corporate sponsors richer in the process.
No. In fact the wording of the constitution itself, and it's drafters' papers, make it quite clear the intent of creating the creating the Constitution, of essentially crating a brand new Government 2.0, was specifically that a STRONGER government was needed precisely because the Government 1.0 under the Articles of Confederation was too weak and powerless to be effective and the young nation was on the brink of dissolving into 13 seperate smaller nations.
When Libertarians talk about the government, and small government, and the ideals of the Constitution, they arent really talking about a return to "strict interpretation", but a return to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution does put limits on the governmental branches, to keep them going round and round in the "checks and balances" concept, and the states should have jurisdiction where it's logical to do so, but as a whole the Federal Government is intended to be the ultimate law of the land and be able to leverage its greater "economies of scale" (for lack of a better phrase).
Supremacy Clause. Article 6, Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The science drove the unbeleivers out. That's how science works.
You don't get to question Einstein just because. The more evidence for the prevailing theory piles up, the greater the burden of proof you must overcome in order to overturn the consensus. You don't have the automatic right to considered just as valid just because you have the ability to say "well, i think it's....". You need a damn good pile of data to back you up.
Mod down the troll. The skeptics are not correct, and have never correct on this.
Rather, this is science at work: observation -> prediction -> test -> refinement -> repeat. There is no coverup (unless you believe in 10's of thousands of scientists there is a near perfect conspiracy....a better kept secret than even the atom bomb). The article is simply saying they found what happened to change the rate of increase. Namely a new event was triggered that is causing the Atlantic to abosrb even more heat than previously expected, as a current has both sped up and dove deeper.
Also, just to be clear.. THERE IS NO PAUSE OR "HIATUS". It is a misnomer that has caught on and needs to be killed. The summary says "flatlined" and that's just as wrong. The warming is still occuring. The temperature is stil increasing. To claim a "pause", "flatline", or "hiatus" is flat wrong. The rate of change decreased, but it is still >0.
The entire misconception comes directly frm an inability to read and interpret a graph. If you understand derivatives of a function, then you know that just because the slope of a derivitive function is graphed, if that slope is 0, doesn't mean that the higher order source function is also 0.
The warming is still occuring. That is unequivocable.
It's not "government" that is the problem. It's "bad government". Government that looks to the lobbyists first instead of its citizens. Ie, corrupt public officials.
Because some officials are bad doesn't mean the solution is automatically "no government"...that solves nothing. Proper government is run in the interest of its constituents.
Proper government would have some simple and sane regulations to promote competition (no non-compete agreements, even force competition via EU style no exclusive access to the "last mile" rules), or work with companies that would increase access and reduce cost Like has happened in cities Google's gone. Or even the government itself would create its own utility for internet access, like Chattanooga did, becoming one of the best wired cities in the country.
Because this, just like healthcare, gun control, and the environment, is an absolutely unheard of problem that no one else in the world has ever had to confront and solve ever before.
I mean just look at Europe and Australia and Canada and the rest of the developed world.......shootings all the time cause they still havent solved gun crime yet either....And the internet....why they're just as bad off from monopolization sticking them with shoddy customer service, low speeds, high prices, and no consumer choice....And let's not forget healthcare...no one anywhere in the developed world can afford to even have children cause they cost an arm and a leg, everywhere.
Yep. We can't just look to other countries cause there are TOTALLY brand new unheard of problems that no one has ever faced or solved before, ever.
you didnt watch the video. this isnt about the replacement of physical labor. its about the replacement of mental labor as well.
you're right that stuff SHOULD become more available....but if people cant work, with what will they buy it in an economy still based on scarcity and the trade of labor for resources? that's the point: we're approaching the point of development where there WONT be adequate new labor created. Even the last time around not all lost jobs were replaced with new ones, but only a fraction of them. Every time industry goes through an iterative cycle of this it happens, but people still say "its ok, they'll all just get new jobs tending the machines". But we're approaching the point where the machines wont need minders, where they will mind themselves, and each other.
if you watch the video he's talking about 45% of the entire workforce jobless, TODAY, with just the tech that already exists today, between the driverless cars, automated checkouts, etc. That's an absolutely HUGE market disruption. I dont think you comprehend just how dramatic that is. there is a limit to how much saturation your peer-peer economy, just like a creative economy, can tolerate. its very small.
We stand on the cusp of the post-scarcity world. But the transition is not going to be seamless or quick. And between then and now there is going to be much strife as people are pushed out of the economy. If there aren't strong solutions, which will have to be in the form of social safety nets, this will lead to conflicts for as long as the economy is based on scarcity and the trade of labor for resources.
This is after all one of the most popular/common themes and sources of widespread conflict in scifi, the transition from a society of 7 billion+ people who have to work to eat, to one where work is largely optional (and realistically, even the utility workers will be marginalized as the machines learn to repair, or more likely replace, each other).
Uh, you do realize that those liberals you want to remove are the reasons we havent had a major crash since the 30s? That the cause of the crash was irresponsible behaviour by the big corporations, behaviour only made possible by deregulation? it has nothing to do with anything you said. in short: fuck off troll.
actually it did. we still live with it today. and it was strengthened by LBJ. the only things standing in the way of it were republicans who sabotaged, and then screamed "see? it doesnt work". Just like they do with government in general (excepting of course the military, police, CIA, homeland security, etc)
the results have been a dramatic decrease in the overall rates of poverty, especially among the elderly who used to comprise the majority of those in poverty and experienced a nearly 50% rate of poverty as a group. Now only about 10% of them live in poverty, and they make up less than 10% of those in poverty.
WTF Dude? There is no correlation. that's the point. Kids that age don't yet comprehend reality; they play a videogame, it's their only exposure to these concepts, and all they see is glory and badassery. He's showing them reality. That while games are fine, and fun, they have to be kept in perspective. That real life is not just some game without repercussions and lots of badassery. There's real suffering involved, and little glory, and he wants his kids to know that. It's a lesson a lot Americans, especially in DC, could stand to learn.
see? that right there invalidates everything you said. the major news media trends centrist. its only according to the far right wing / Fox News definition of bias that they can be considered "leftist"....ie, "they disagree with me, therefore they are liberal commie tyrants".
except on here they get mod points, and pursue vendettas to stifle anyone who disagrees with them, and points out the logical fallacies or logical consequences of their denial of science, history, or reality.
so you're pushing the old "rich scientists" myth? You know its BS right? As in false, made up, not true? In fact, it's actually a projection, because the REAL money to be made in global warming is in DENYING it.
Well you should. Come back to reality. It's not just more rational, it's nicer over here too. And we have cookies.
To sum up: climate research doesn't pay well, the amount of money dedicated to it has been shrinking, and if the researchers were successful in convincing the public that climate change was a serious threat, the response would be to give money to someone else. If you come across someone arguing that scientists are in it for the money, then you can probably assume they are willing to make arguments without getting their facts straight.
Slashdot Mirror
My mod stalker sure has a lot of points to abuse
again. not flamebait.
Questioning....for a valid reason.
Questioning....because you don't like it, or especially for political reasons, which is the number one reason for these cranks who say they have an equal right to their "opinion"... is not sufficient.
Don't tell me what I think when I keep telling you what I think.
Just because you CAN question something doesn't mean your theory is just as valid as the prevailing theory with tons of data to back it up.
Your new theory can only overturn the prevailing mountain of thought if it is sufficiently rigorous.
If it is not, you're just a crank.
If it is...if it can and does overturn the prevailing consensus....then it becomes the new consensus (over time).
but everytime it has happened, it hasn't happened just because the person was a crank, but because he was able to sufficiently back it up, sufficiently defend it, and show its superiority. and that is the problem with deniers, and why they are cranks: they have nothing.
No, it's not suddenly real.
It's a misconception on the part of deniers.
Tempereatures were still rising, simply at a lower rate.
The process of taking a GLOBAL, YEARLY average of LOCAL, DAILY (even hourly) observations masks the extreme variation around the world, as we see more higher highs and lower lows around the world, depending on local condition.
The overall state of being has still been a net gain of energy to the system (where system = Earth).
That's why when deniers talk about a "pause" or "hiatus" we shake our heads and say "you poor dumb non-mathmatical idiot".
That's why we say the "hiatus doesn't exist"....because the hiatus as the deniers try to paint DOESN'T EXIST.
they fundamentally misunderstand and misstate the concept, and try to use their flawed concept to back their completely flase claim that "GW isn't real".
that's exactly what it is.
the HTF is funded solely by the gas tax.
there's not enough money in the HTF cause they regularly steal frm it to pay for other things.
of course, as it also happens, even if they totally stopped raiding the fund, it is STILL insufficient to meet needs.
thus due to insufficienct funds basic maintenance, let alone new construction, is underfunded and underperformed.
the only solution is to increase the funding available.
but they flatly refuse to stop raiding the fund.
and they flatly refuse to increase the funding mechanism, ie, the gas tax.
right before they adjourned for their vacation a couple weeks ago, they did pass a new "infrastructure bill"...that puts a small amount of money into the fund temporarily.
the problem is, its not coming form taxes. its not coming from other funds.
its a loan from certain private businesses.
which will be repaid to those businesses in a few years time. with interest.
so they literally get to increase their profits with tax dollars paid directly to them by the government.
Thus Congress managed to both kick the can down the road, and make their corporate sponsors richer in the process.
No. In fact the wording of the constitution itself, and it's drafters' papers, make it quite clear the intent of creating the creating the Constitution, of essentially crating a brand new Government 2.0, was specifically that a STRONGER government was needed precisely because the Government 1.0 under the Articles of Confederation was too weak and powerless to be effective and the young nation was on the brink of dissolving into 13 seperate smaller nations.
When Libertarians talk about the government, and small government, and the ideals of the Constitution, they arent really talking about a return to "strict interpretation", but a return to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution does put limits on the governmental branches, to keep them going round and round in the "checks and balances" concept, and the states should have jurisdiction where it's logical to do so, but as a whole the Federal Government is intended to be the ultimate law of the land and be able to leverage its greater "economies of scale" (for lack of a better phrase).
Again you post BS.
Supremacy Clause.
Article 6, Clause 2.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Once again you are posting BS.
It's called the Supremacy Clause.
And it invalidates everything you said.
Troll, edumicate thyself:
Global Warming 'Pause' Isn't What Climate Change Skeptics Say It Is
http://www.weather.com/news/sc...
The science drove the unbeleivers out.
That's how science works.
You don't get to question Einstein just because.
The more evidence for the prevailing theory piles up, the greater the burden of proof you must overcome in order to overturn the consensus.
You don't have the automatic right to considered just as valid just because you have the ability to say "well, i think it's....". You need a damn good pile of data to back you up.
and right now, the cranks have diddly squat.
Mod down the troll.
The skeptics are not correct, and have never correct on this.
Rather, this is science at work: observation -> prediction -> test -> refinement -> repeat.
There is no coverup (unless you believe in 10's of thousands of scientists there is a near perfect conspiracy....a better kept secret than even the atom bomb).
The article is simply saying they found what happened to change the rate of increase. Namely a new event was triggered that is causing the Atlantic to abosrb even more heat than previously expected, as a current has both sped up and dove deeper.
Also, just to be clear.. THERE IS NO PAUSE OR "HIATUS".
It is a misnomer that has caught on and needs to be killed.
The summary says "flatlined" and that's just as wrong.
The warming is still occuring. The temperature is stil increasing.
To claim a "pause", "flatline", or "hiatus" is flat wrong.
The rate of change decreased, but it is still >0.
The entire misconception comes directly frm an inability to read and interpret a graph. If you understand derivatives of a function, then you know that just because the slope of a derivitive function is graphed, if that slope is 0, doesn't mean that the higher order source function is also 0.
The warming is still occuring. That is unequivocable.
and the magical IHOTFM will fix it?
Yeah...no.
It's not "government" that is the problem.
It's "bad government".
Government that looks to the lobbyists first instead of its citizens.
Ie, corrupt public officials.
Because some officials are bad doesn't mean the solution is automatically "no government"...that solves nothing. Proper government is run in the interest of its constituents.
Proper government would have some simple and sane regulations to promote competition (no non-compete agreements, even force competition via EU style no exclusive access to the "last mile" rules), or work with companies that would increase access and reduce cost Like has happened in cities Google's gone.
Or even the government itself would create its own utility for internet access, like Chattanooga did, becoming one of the best wired cities in the country.
Because this, just like healthcare, gun control, and the environment, is an absolutely unheard of problem that no one else in the world has ever had to confront and solve ever before.
I mean just look at Europe and Australia and Canada and the rest of the developed world... ....shootings all the time cause they still havent solved gun crime yet either. ...And the internet....why they're just as bad off from monopolization sticking them with shoddy customer service, low speeds, high prices, and no consumer choice. ...And let's not forget healthcare...no one anywhere in the developed world can afford to even have children cause they cost an arm and a leg, everywhere.
Yep.
We can't just look to other countries cause there are TOTALLY brand new unheard of problems that no one has ever faced or solved before, ever.
Right on cue.
an economy cannot function as just the rich mans toy.
you didnt watch the video.
this isnt about the replacement of physical labor.
its about the replacement of mental labor as well.
you're right that stuff SHOULD become more available....but if people cant work, with what will they buy it in an economy still based on scarcity and the trade of labor for resources? that's the point: we're approaching the point of development where there WONT be adequate new labor created. Even the last time around not all lost jobs were replaced with new ones, but only a fraction of them. Every time industry goes through an iterative cycle of this it happens, but people still say "its ok, they'll all just get new jobs tending the machines". But we're approaching the point where the machines wont need minders, where they will mind themselves, and each other.
if you watch the video he's talking about 45% of the entire workforce jobless, TODAY, with just the tech that already exists today, between the driverless cars, automated checkouts, etc. That's an absolutely HUGE market disruption. I dont think you comprehend just how dramatic that is. there is a limit to how much saturation your peer-peer economy, just like a creative economy, can tolerate. its very small.
And that's the problem.
We stand on the cusp of the post-scarcity world.
But the transition is not going to be seamless or quick.
And between then and now there is going to be much strife as people are pushed out of the economy.
If there aren't strong solutions, which will have to be in the form of social safety nets, this will lead to conflicts for as long as the economy is based on scarcity and the trade of labor for resources.
This is after all one of the most popular/common themes and sources of widespread conflict in scifi, the transition from a society of 7 billion+ people who have to work to eat, to one where work is largely optional (and realistically, even the utility workers will be marginalized as the machines learn to repair, or more likely replace, each other).
Uh, you do realize that those liberals you want to remove are the reasons we havent had a major crash since the 30s?
That the cause of the crash was irresponsible behaviour by the big corporations, behaviour only made possible by deregulation?
it has nothing to do with anything you said.
in short: fuck off troll.
actually it did. we still live with it today. and it was strengthened by LBJ.
the only things standing in the way of it were republicans who sabotaged, and then screamed "see? it doesnt work". Just like they do with government in general (excepting of course the military, police, CIA, homeland security, etc)
the results have been a dramatic decrease in the overall rates of poverty, especially among the elderly who used to comprise the majority of those in poverty and experienced a nearly 50% rate of poverty as a group. Now only about 10% of them live in poverty, and they make up less than 10% of those in poverty.
your comment is completely offtopic, offbase, insulting to pacifism, and blind to history.
mod this gentleman up
WTF Dude? There is no correlation. that's the point.
Kids that age don't yet comprehend reality; they play a videogame, it's their only exposure to these concepts, and all they see is glory and badassery. He's showing them reality. That while games are fine, and fun, they have to be kept in perspective. That real life is not just some game without repercussions and lots of badassery. There's real suffering involved, and little glory, and he wants his kids to know that. It's a lesson a lot Americans, especially in DC, could stand to learn.
"their left leaning stupidity"
see? that right there invalidates everything you said.
the major news media trends centrist.
its only according to the far right wing / Fox News definition of bias that they can be considered "leftist"....ie, "they disagree with me, therefore they are liberal commie tyrants".
except on here they get mod points, and pursue vendettas to stifle anyone who disagrees with them, and points out the logical fallacies or logical consequences of their denial of science, history, or reality.
so you're pushing the old "rich scientists" myth?
You know its BS right?
As in false, made up, not true?
In fact, it's actually a projection, because the REAL money to be made in global warming is in DENYING it.
Well you should.
Come back to reality.
It's not just more rational, it's nicer over here too.
And we have cookies.
To sum up: climate research doesn't pay well, the amount of money dedicated to it has been shrinking, and if the researchers were successful in convincing the public that climate change was a serious threat, the response would be to give money to someone else. If you come across someone arguing that scientists are in it for the money, then you can probably assume they are willing to make arguments without getting their facts straight.
http://arstechnica.com/science...
http://www.scientificamerican....