they talk about the evils and conspiracys of science, proclaim trusting experts isnt valid, that non-experts have equally valid opinions...and when you point out the problems, or how they ignore reality and history, and how the gilded age wasnt a utopia, or talk about actual science and actual observations...they mod you as troll and flamebait.
dear god, you keep saying the exact opposite of reality. each and every time this topic comes up. the models do in fact predict both previously observations, and as each new set of observations come in, they have continued to fall within the predictions. the graphs go back far further than that, and no, 1970 was not some local minimum. one would almost think that you're not simply a troll, but a professional troll.
you just linked to another faulty denier site that has itself been proven wrong, and an article that trots out the same "warm period and "little ice age" misconceptions. Roy Spencer is not a valid source.
The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.
The Medieval Warm Period predominantly affected the North Atlantic and Europe, not the whole world. While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.
The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.
As for Roy Spencer himself: -He believes in the "global scientific conspiracy"...a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and perfect secrecy... -He believes that they lie to make money off research grants" myths....cause theres just so much money to be made that way...as opposed to being on the payroll of a big oil company, like him. -Oh, and he also believes that GW cant be happening....because God.
So ya...that's a "wonderful" source you have there.
I see. So debunking the most popular myths and misconceptions of the science, using actual science, from actual scientists...is propoganda? Fraid not. You can't just cover your hears and "lalalalalalalalala" the science away.
Wrong. The nonsense is the garbage spewing out of your mouth.
Just because it's not realistic to make the playing field 100% level doesn't mean we cant make it more fair than it is. It doesnt mean we have to accept people living in poverty, living a worse quality of life simply because of the birth lottery.
Just a tiny fraction of what the top 0.01% have would lift ALL of the disadvantaged out of poverty, and create a society where the weakest among dont have to worry about where next months food or rent comes from, a society where your life expectency is determined by your income and therefore by what part of town you happened to born into.
again: not flamebait. stop abusing hte mod system ebcause you're scared of different viewpoints that actually understand their position and its consequences.
Ok please. again you prove you are no serious scientist. you have no valid arguments
Because clearly it isn't, if their research is used in this book to support the opposing argument"
Except that happens ALL THE TIME. Look at global warming. Deniers will specifically point at the data, and say "its getting colder". Just because someone who is wrong cites your work and lies about what your work says, doesnt mean your work is invalid.
no. The only thing that can actually keep weakest from falling too far is a wealthy growing free market capitalist economy.
In over 10,000 years of human history that has never happened, never been true. not once. Not in ancient egypt. Not in ancient Rome. not in merry old england. not in China. And not in our own country. you are ignorant of basic history.
if you oppose the concept of a road as a public good, then fine. go "subscribe"...and then try to work out the logistics of negotiating how to cross your neighbors property, and how to deal with switching "road companies"...and every other logistical nightmare that comes with natural monopolies. then maybe youll learn why roads are a public good, that we all benefit from.
so i imagine in your world, where there is no public safety rules, no public food inspectors, no public firemen or police...you imagie just civilians banding together for the common good when something bad along these lines happens? a large group of people acting in unison to exert a collective will in their own self-interest? there's a word for that: GOVERNMENT. thats why you're position is myopic and ignorant.
then there's also education and schools...you benefit directly from having a educated populace around you yet you would rather people only get whatever education they can aford? congratulations: you've doomed 99% of society to eternal ignorance, killed democracy, and ensured your own conitnued oppression. education for all is one of the cornerstones of our freedom.
and speaking of freedom...dont ever say im not patriotic and freedom loving. you can just shove that right up where the sun dont shine. I spent over 13 years in the USMC. so believe me. i take freedom very seriously.
ive also studied philosophy, civics, political theory, and history, especially history, and thats why i know your position is unteneable and unrealistic. you are willfully ignorant and blind to all that has gone before. its you and your ignorant brethern that sabotage government and then say "see? its worthless". the greatest threat to American excellence, exceptionalism, and freedom comes frm your side of the fence, from your positions, not mine.
to be clear: capitalism tied to a free market (because they are NOT the same thing) is as yet the most effective economic system yet developed. but it is an undebateable fact that it is naturally self-destructive. it has always, eventually, shot itself in the foot and ground to a halt. the boom-bust cycle isn't a bug, it's a feature. we have seen this countless times throughout history.
that is the purpose of government regulation and public welfare: to control the beast, to prevent its self-destructive tendencies, to channel its positive attributes while (hopefully) reining in its excesses and break the cycle of boom/bust.
problem is stupid people like you who ignore history and reality.
What you've just said... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul...
we have public food safety rules and inspectors because PEOPLE DIED from corporations that put profit ahead of safety. we have public fireman and police because PRIVATE POLICE FORCES HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY, only those who hire them. you seriously speak against public funded roads? when the modern highway system is directly responsible for much of our economic activity?
you belong in the 1890s, when life was great for the 0.01% and sucked for everyone else. socialism, the new deal, the modern welfare state, antitrust law and corporate regulations ALL came into being directly in response to the abuses caused by uncontrolled, unfettered capitalism.
that's barely more than 100yrs ago, and already society has forgotten it. Taxes are not oppression, and the post is not flamebait, and you're stupid and ignorant if you think either is true.
Regulated utilities are allowed to make profits. But it's regulated. That's the problem. Comcast (and other cable cos) are operating in a natural monopoly market area, but lack any and all related regulations that we force companies operating public utilities to operate under. They are being allowed to act as if its a free market, while at the same time enjoying a quasi-utility type natural monopoly.
They should either be a) forced to operate as regulated public utilities b) forced into actual competition
Either one would largely fix the current situation. Right now they are neither, and are enjoying benefits of both A and B, with non of the consequences of either.
no its not 100% correct/ its 100% ignorant and stupid.
you like a military that will defend you? you like clearn water and air? you like a social safety net that keeps the weakest from falling too far? you like a postal system? you like you drivable roads? you like food safety inspections and standards? you like fireman to save your house, and police to catch bad guys?
i guess in your worldview the government should just demand and force people fulfill those services without pay? oh you dont think that? government shoul dhave to pay those things like everyone?
then guess what: pay your taxes and stfu.
Every citizen pays their taxes (or should) willingingly, if grudgingly, because they understand that these things cost money. if you dont understand that you are a poorly educated moron that they forgot to teach basic civics to in grade school.
why would you want to opt out of social security? you plan to die young, or work til your 90? this is the same nonsense dreck you "shrink the gov til you can drown it in a bathtub" types always put up. you need a course in basic civics concerning government (i suggest starting at governmentisgood.com).
and oh, btw, if you dont pay your mortgage, the bank gets the guys with guns to come kick you out.
so we should as individuals all oppose the corporations instead? that never works. corporations crush individuals. it takes collective action, large groups of people to exert power of a corporation
you know what you call a large group of people acting in unison to enforce a collective will? GOVERNMENT*
(*at least in terms of basic civics...the current status quo dedicated to supporting the opposite of whatever the black guy in the oval office wants not withstanding)
Hear hear! sigmon needs a dose of reality and basic civics.
Further support for reality can be found at ( http://www.governmentisgood.co... ). Government and bureaucracy brings its own issues and problems to the table. But government being the reflection of hte people, the representation of hte people's collective will is the ONLY counter-weight to corporate power.
Time and again, throughout history, it is proven repeatedly that individuals on their own cannot stand against corporations. It requires large collective action to successfully oppose a corporation.
It's not that corporations are good or evil, its precisely that they are neither, they are amoral, that the problem comes from. In their pursuit of hte almighty dollar they do not care for the good or ill effects of what they do. All that matters is $$$. But in that pursuit they have great capacity to do harm. And that is why we require regulation, to prevent that harm.
If they want to do great good in the pursuit of $$$...let them knock themselves out. But there is absolutely zero reason why we should allow them to cause harm in the pursuit of that $$$. Hence: Government and Regulation.
So eliminate regulation and corporations will stop buying government officials? And I suppose they will just continue to act as good corporate citizens too without those regulations keeping them in line?
I remind you that most regulations, such as Clean Air/Water, came into being precisely because the corporations proved themselves too untrustworthy to do it themselves, and thus needed to be forced by the hand of government reflecting the people's will (ie, we dont like lakes that catch on fire, and drinking water that causes cancer).
then you misunderstand fallacies. nearly every defined fallacy has a condition or conditions easily satisfied in which the original statement is correct and not fallacious.
"Correlation is not causation" is hte biggest one you see on slashdot. its a warning, a guide, but its not true 100% of the time. sometimes correlation IS causation. or really whats happening is its saying "hey, there might be something here, we need to look further...but careful, it could be coincidence"
Appeal to Authority is another that can easily have situations in which its not automatically wrong. and its exactly as I said: the fallacy usually arrives from citing a non-authority as an authority. "I'm not a scientist, but Bobby over there tells me GW is a hoax." Now unless Bobby-over-there is a phd in climatology and current in the field, and not funded by oil companies....he may not qualify. But if Bobby IS that current, established, and well regarded phd, then his opinion on the science and evidence ABSOLUTELY does carry more weight than a non-experts, and its not fallacious in nature, merely potentially so until you know his background and reasoning. we appeal to authority because we are not experts. but if we cant cite experts and automatically wrong for doing so, then either you're doing the work of the ignorant for them, or we must all become experts at everything.
Slashdot Mirror
they've infested slashdot.
they talk about the evils and conspiracys of science, proclaim trusting experts isnt valid, that non-experts have equally valid opinions...and when you point out the problems, or how they ignore reality and history, and how the gilded age wasnt a utopia, or talk about actual science and actual observations...they mod you as troll and flamebait.
dear god, you keep saying the exact opposite of reality. each and every time this topic comes up.
the models do in fact predict both previously observations, and as each new set of observations come in, they have continued to fall within the predictions.
the graphs go back far further than that, and no, 1970 was not some local minimum.
one would almost think that you're not simply a troll, but a professional troll.
you didnt debunk anything.
you just linked to another faulty denier site that has itself been proven wrong, and an article that trots out the same "warm period and "little ice age" misconceptions.
Roy Spencer is not a valid source.
Tree ring reliability: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):
The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.
Medieval Warm Period: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):
The Medieval Warm Period predominantly affected the North Atlantic and Europe, not the whole world. While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.
The Little Ice Age: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):
The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.
As for Roy Spencer himself: ...a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and perfect secrecy...
-He believes in the "global scientific conspiracy"
-He believes that they lie to make money off research grants" myths....cause theres just so much money to be made that way...as opposed to being on the payroll of a big oil company, like him.
-Oh, and he also believes that GW cant be happening....because God.
So ya...that's a "wonderful" source you have there.
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
I see. So debunking the most popular myths and misconceptions of the science, using actual science, from actual scientists...is propoganda?
Fraid not. You can't just cover your hears and "lalalalalalalalala" the science away.
that's not a fact.
that's a myth.
it is a myth, or more accurately a LIE, that there has been "no warming" for the past 17 years.
* isn't determined
Wrong. The nonsense is the garbage spewing out of your mouth.
Just because it's not realistic to make the playing field 100% level doesn't mean we cant make it more fair than it is.
It doesnt mean we have to accept people living in poverty, living a worse quality of life simply because of the birth lottery.
Just a tiny fraction of what the top 0.01% have would lift ALL of the disadvantaged out of poverty, and create a society where the weakest among dont have to worry about where next months food or rent comes from, a society where your life expectency is determined by your income and therefore by what part of town you happened to born into.
caveat: voter fraud isn't an issue now.
2nd caveat: there is value in having experienced politicians/statemen vs amateurs.
again: not flamebait.
stop abusing hte mod system ebcause you're scared of different viewpoints that actually understand their position and its consequences.
again, not flamebait. and the guy is an a confesed abuser of the mod system.
Ok please. again you prove you are no serious scientist.
you have no valid arguments
Because clearly it isn't, if their research is used in this book to support the opposing argument"
Except that happens ALL THE TIME.
Look at global warming. Deniers will specifically point at the data, and say "its getting colder".
Just because someone who is wrong cites your work and lies about what your work says, doesnt mean your work is invalid.
no. The only thing that can actually keep weakest from falling too far is a wealthy growing free market capitalist economy.
In over 10,000 years of human history that has never happened, never been true. not once.
Not in ancient egypt. Not in ancient Rome. not in merry old england. not in China. And not in our own country.
you are ignorant of basic history.
if you oppose the concept of a road as a public good, then fine. go "subscribe"...and then try to work out the logistics of negotiating how to cross your neighbors property, and how to deal with switching "road companies"...and every other logistical nightmare that comes with natural monopolies. then maybe youll learn why roads are a public good, that we all benefit from.
so i imagine in your world, where there is no public safety rules, no public food inspectors, no public firemen or police...you imagie just civilians banding together for the common good when something bad along these lines happens?
a large group of people acting in unison to exert a collective will in their own self-interest?
there's a word for that: GOVERNMENT. thats why you're position is myopic and ignorant.
then there's also education and schools...you benefit directly from having a educated populace around you yet you would rather people only get whatever education they can aford? congratulations: you've doomed 99% of society to eternal ignorance, killed democracy, and ensured your own conitnued oppression. education for all is one of the cornerstones of our freedom.
and speaking of freedom...dont ever say im not patriotic and freedom loving. you can just shove that right up where the sun dont shine. I spent over 13 years in the USMC. so believe me. i take freedom very seriously.
ive also studied philosophy, civics, political theory, and history, especially history, and thats why i know your position is unteneable and unrealistic. you are willfully ignorant and blind to all that has gone before. its you and your ignorant brethern that sabotage government and then say "see? its worthless". the greatest threat to American excellence, exceptionalism, and freedom comes frm your side of the fence, from your positions, not mine.
to be clear:
capitalism tied to a free market (because they are NOT the same thing) is as yet the most effective economic system yet developed.
but it is an undebateable fact that it is naturally self-destructive.
it has always, eventually, shot itself in the foot and ground to a halt.
the boom-bust cycle isn't a bug, it's a feature.
we have seen this countless times throughout history.
that is the purpose of government regulation and public welfare: to control the beast, to prevent its self-destructive tendencies, to channel its positive attributes while (hopefully) reining in its excesses and break the cycle of boom/bust.
problem is stupid people like you who ignore history and reality.
What you've just said... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul...
we have public food safety rules and inspectors because PEOPLE DIED from corporations that put profit ahead of safety.
we have public fireman and police because PRIVATE POLICE FORCES HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY, only those who hire them.
you seriously speak against public funded roads? when the modern highway system is directly responsible for much of our economic activity?
you belong in the 1890s, when life was great for the 0.01% and sucked for everyone else. socialism, the new deal, the modern welfare state, antitrust law and corporate regulations ALL came into being directly in response to the abuses caused by uncontrolled, unfettered capitalism.
that's barely more than 100yrs ago, and already society has forgotten it.
Taxes are not oppression, and the post is not flamebait, and you're stupid and ignorant if you think either is true.
once again the ignorant libertarians have modded as troll those they disagree with because they never took a civics lesson
Regulated utilities are allowed to make profits. But it's regulated.
That's the problem. Comcast (and other cable cos) are operating in a natural monopoly market area, but lack any and all related regulations that we force companies operating public utilities to operate under. They are being allowed to act as if its a free market, while at the same time enjoying a quasi-utility type natural monopoly.
They should either be
a) forced to operate as regulated public utilities
b) forced into actual competition
Either one would largely fix the current situation.
Right now they are neither, and are enjoying benefits of both A and B, with non of the consequences of either.
I never realized there were so many racists on /.
no its not 100% correct/
its 100% ignorant and stupid.
you like a military that will defend you?
you like clearn water and air?
you like a social safety net that keeps the weakest from falling too far?
you like a postal system?
you like you drivable roads?
you like food safety inspections and standards?
you like fireman to save your house, and police to catch bad guys?
i guess in your worldview the government should just demand and force people fulfill those services without pay?
oh you dont think that? government shoul dhave to pay those things like everyone?
then guess what: pay your taxes and stfu.
Every citizen pays their taxes (or should) willingingly, if grudgingly, because they understand that these things cost money.
if you dont understand that you are a poorly educated moron that they forgot to teach basic civics to in grade school.
why would you want to opt out of social security?
you plan to die young, or work til your 90?
this is the same nonsense dreck you "shrink the gov til you can drown it in a bathtub" types always put up.
you need a course in basic civics concerning government (i suggest starting at governmentisgood.com).
and oh, btw, if you dont pay your mortgage, the bank gets the guys with guns to come kick you out.
Oh they are. They very much are completely out of their gourd.
Much like hte existence of winter does not disprove global warming, the existence of lazy people does not disprove government.
so we should as individuals all oppose the corporations instead?
that never works. corporations crush individuals.
it takes collective action, large groups of people to exert power of a corporation
you know what you call a large group of people acting in unison to enforce a collective will?
GOVERNMENT*
(*at least in terms of basic civics...the current status quo dedicated to supporting the opposite of whatever the black guy in the oval office wants not withstanding)
Hear hear!
sigmon needs a dose of reality and basic civics.
Further support for reality can be found at ( http://www.governmentisgood.co... ).
Government and bureaucracy brings its own issues and problems to the table. But government being the reflection of hte people, the representation of hte people's collective will is the ONLY counter-weight to corporate power.
Time and again, throughout history, it is proven repeatedly that individuals on their own cannot stand against corporations. It requires large collective action to successfully oppose a corporation.
It's not that corporations are good or evil, its precisely that they are neither, they are amoral, that the problem comes from. In their pursuit of hte almighty dollar they do not care for the good or ill effects of what they do. All that matters is $$$. But in that pursuit they have great capacity to do harm. And that is why we require regulation, to prevent that harm.
If they want to do great good in the pursuit of $$$...let them knock themselves out.
But there is absolutely zero reason why we should allow them to cause harm in the pursuit of that $$$.
Hence: Government and Regulation.
So eliminate regulation and corporations will stop buying government officials?
And I suppose they will just continue to act as good corporate citizens too without those regulations keeping them in line?
I remind you that most regulations, such as Clean Air/Water, came into being precisely because the corporations proved themselves too untrustworthy to do it themselves, and thus needed to be forced by the hand of government reflecting the people's will (ie, we dont like lakes that catch on fire, and drinking water that causes cancer).
In short: you be trippin.
a rather large portion of the rest of world has better uses for their extremely limited funds.
then you misunderstand fallacies.
nearly every defined fallacy has a condition or conditions easily satisfied in which the original statement is correct and not fallacious.
"Correlation is not causation" is hte biggest one you see on slashdot. its a warning, a guide, but its not true 100% of the time. sometimes correlation IS causation. or really whats happening is its saying "hey, there might be something here, we need to look further...but careful, it could be coincidence"
Appeal to Authority is another that can easily have situations in which its not automatically wrong. and its exactly as I said: the fallacy usually arrives from citing a non-authority as an authority. "I'm not a scientist, but Bobby over there tells me GW is a hoax." Now unless Bobby-over-there is a phd in climatology and current in the field, and not funded by oil companies....he may not qualify. But if Bobby IS that current, established, and well regarded phd, then his opinion on the science and evidence ABSOLUTELY does carry more weight than a non-experts, and its not fallacious in nature, merely potentially so until you know his background and reasoning. we appeal to authority because we are not experts. but if we cant cite experts and automatically wrong for doing so, then either you're doing the work of the ignorant for them, or we must all become experts at everything.