It's interesting, is all - nearly all Windows malware these days is "a bad application you chose to install AND chose to give root privs to", and yet the amount of malware on Windows is still seen as a good reason for switching to a Mac.
You keep using this passive language attacking some other. I've NEVER heard someone saying that a reason to switch from Windows is that you might purposely install an app designed to hurt you. Maybe some people say that, but I never hear it, and I could not possibly care less, as it has no bearing on the actual computers.
Also Microsoft support don't as far as I know care about whether it was your fault that your computer got infected, and neither do the press.
And I don't care about the press.
As far as MS support goes, well, presumably that is because it IS so pervasive a problem, they have no choice but to address it. This obviously isn't the case with Mac OS X, where I can count the number of people I know who have been infected on my fist (that is, zero). This isn't to say one is better than the other, obviously: it's just to say that it is not a big problem on the Mac at this time.
Arguably they shouldn't because it's Microsoft and Apples' fault that it's so hard for users to make an informed decision.
It's not hard: don't install something without researching it first, and knowing what you're installing. This is not hard at all. Google the app name, find reviews from trusted sources, get your downloads from trusted sources. Very easy.
That's the other odd thing. Mac OS X isn't very secure - as this demonstrates
False. In fact, this case has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with security. If Mac OS X is not "secure" in this case, then neither is any operating system ever that allows you to install software of your choice on it, and allows you, the user, access to have something similar to root privileges.
You're being stupid.
it's nearly as easy for a website to install software as it was on Windows when Microsoft still thought ActiveX was a good idea
You're lying. A "web site" installed nothing at all: a user did it, with purpose, intention, and full knowledge.
What? I clearly demonstrated that what you said is, in fact, not true, and you say, "see that's the deal" as if it somehow proved your point (which, again, I clearly demonstrated is not true)?
Really?
guys like you are in love with an Apple computer that doesn't exist anymore.
Well, no... I am using it right now.
The mass market shinies they sell to the rest of the planet are advertised as electronic miracles that never fail and let even an idiot use them.
Are you really, seriously, here to whine about the mass media? That's your point, that Macs suck because of what people say about them?
That's great you're a command line wizard, but Macs are not really targeting you
Yes, they are. You're ignorant.
... and in fact Apple makes a point of telling people they don't need to be like you to use one.
Yes... different types of users can use the same type of computer. And?
In the mind of most of the Mac users I know, you'd look like the PC guy in an Apple commercial.
Again, how does that reflect on the computer itself? (psssst: it doesn't.)
It's sad, you can see the denial starts at Apple and flows right on down to the fanboy level.
Um... the only thing I've "denied" was your false statements about how I see and use the computer, and that what people say about the computer actually reflects on the computer itself. You've said nothing of substance about the computer that even COULD be denied.
Iphone4, mac hardware issues, malware, it's always the same song: deny, deny, deny, blame user if that doesn't work. some good kool-aid i guess.
Errm... you know where most Windows malware infections come from these days, right?
Not really, no. Nor do I care, and neither do my comments have anything to do with Windows.:-)
If you're trying to make the argument that "these days" Windows is about as secure as a Mac, I'd doubt it, because I know people who still get lots of viruses... but whatever, I really don't care. I wasn't making a comparison to other platforms.
Mac folks praise the hand holding and the fact that a Mac just won't let you do anything bad.
Dude, I live on the command line in my Mac. Won't let me do anything bad? On what planet?
Then in the same breath they say, well you're just stupid, it's your fault the hand holding, infallible Mac didn't stop you.
Nope: I say that on any platform that DOES give you the freedom Mac OS X gives you, this is literally unavoidable (well, except by being knowledgable enough to not do stupid things like installing rogue software and giving it root privs).
Blu-Ray costs more, can only be used in one device in my home (as opposed to five or six for DVD), and can't be ripped to be used on many other devices in my home. If I want HD, and am going to be locked in anyway, I might as well buy from iTunes: I don't have to worry about ripping it myself, and I can use it on many devices in my home.
I've never bought a Blu-Ray movie except for when it comes in the combo pack, so I get the free download with it.
if people can see and smell smoke, I'm likely to call the fire dept rather than wait for the full blaze to erupt. If you'd rather wait for the blaze, then, yes, you're an idiot.
If you think that analogy makes sense, YOU'RE an idiot. I am not against calling the fire department: I am against the fire department flooding the house before they check to make sure what the actual cause of the smoke is.
those changes ending being worse than we can currently predict. That last point is most definitely a fact.
Absolutely false.
Actually that is a fact. The models that we had back in the 1970s showed certain results. We now know that the actual results are worse than the models worse case.
False. We know that the results WERE (in some cases) worse. You have absolutely no scientific or rational basis for saying that this trend of being worse will continue.
So the fact that the predictions weren't harsh enough means that you'd somehow conclude that any predictions must be completely unrealistic?
No. I make no such conclusion. Science dictates that we do not do so. YOU are the one trying to reach a conclusion here, and you have no scientific basis to do so.
... unless you have some evidence that the models are getting worse?
You have it backward. YOU have to have evidence that the incorrect models will continue to be incorrect in the same basic way as before. You have no such evidence.
Yes I'm 'trusting' scientists on this point.
There's no science in what you described.
So to refute my position you compare it to the completely farcical concept of supreme deities?
No. I compared your type of argument to the exact same type of argument.
Science has evidence
And YOU do not: hence, you are not describing science.
So we're down to the 'me first' idea.
No. We are down to the "don't cause **anyone** harm unless it's necessary" idea. And you can't demonstrate it is necessary. So instead, you lie about the evidence and attack anyone who is rightfully skeptical of it.
My argument against skepticism is against unfounded skepticism.
You're lying.
The claims started with 'it isn't happening'.
You're lying. Shakrai said no such thing, nor implied it in any way. Yet you still called him an "idiot."
When evidence mounts that, gee, it is happening and doing so fairly rapidly, the claims shift to "we couldn't possibly be affecting the climate, so it must be natural".
You're lying. I only questioned the claim that it is caused by humans (and I pointed out the fact that humans are natural; please stop confusing the language by pretending otherwise). I did not say man is NOT causing it, nor did I remotely make any such implication.
The 'skeptics' are far more ignorant of reality, sorry.
Than you? Some of them, perhaps. Not me, certainly: I actually understand science, for example, and you do not. You make grand claims about "facts" without any actual factual basis. And you call people "idiots" for being skeptical, and then you lie about what their skepticism is about.
Just pointing out that using the IPCC as a source on climate change may not be the best way to be thought as credible.
I fully agree... unfortunately, the "climate change" community uses the IPCC as the basis for, literally, almost all of their claims.
Gravity isn't 'fact' either
Yes, it is. We don't know how it works, but we know it exists. It is a fact.
I fully agree that not all the data are in on climate change.
Then fuck you for calling people "idiots" for being skeptical. Come on now... you admit skepticism is justified by decry its existence.
But the data we do have strongly points towards us causing the changes and those changes ending being worse than we can currently predict. That last point is most definitely a fact.
Absolutely false. As I already well-argued -- and as you did not rebut in the least -- a bad model that skews one way is not evidence that the future will continue to skew that way. It simply means the model is bad, and cannot be trusted. You're using terribly poor, unscientific, reasoning.
But more broadly, if a problem can't be completely quantified, but trends are starting to appear that, if fully realized, portend 'really bad' (tm) things, wouldn't it be prudent to start trying to address those things we are doing that feed into those trends?
You mean those things that we are doing that YOU THINK feed into those trends. And the short answer is: No. That is Pascal's Wager, and it's a fallacy. Pascal said, all things being equal, you can believe in God, or not. If you don't, you could go to hell; if you do, you could go to heaven, so why not believe in God?
But it fails to take into account that there are many untold negative consequences on the other side that are not taken into consideration. In the case of a belief in God, someone could do serious psychological damage to themselves by trying to force themselves to believe something that they really don't believe.
Now, you're not asking for my belief, only my submission. I am not sure if that is better. Regardless, asking me to damage my economic well-being for me and my family for the risk that my activity may be contributing to a problem for others is only justified if you have a damned good reason for actually believing my activity is harmful, and you'd damned well better be able to demonstrate it.
And you can't.
So instead, you all pretend that my skepticism isn't justified, even though you know it is, because it poses a threat to your agenda. That's what's really going on here. You really believe we are causing more and more warming, but you know you can't really show it, so you see -- correctly -- skepticism as a threat to the direction you think we should go. That's all reasonable. But what is not reasonable, what is anti-science and evil, is lying about the strength of your evidence and the reasonableness of skepticism in order to get your agenda realized.
The *vast* majority of science today agrees that we are in fact having effects on the climate.
The IPCC disagrees with them. The IPCC says that it is "very likely," not "fact," that we are having a significant impact on the climate.
And -- in fact -- anyone who considers significant AGW to be a "fact" is damned ignorant, or simply hates science. You've heard of the scientific method, right? Hypothesize, test, conclude. The problem with AGW is that it cannot reasonably be tested on a significant scale: we cannot test what would happen in the world without humans. Obviously.
Many scientists know this and just don't give a damn: they figure that since we can't really test it, they can make up for it by doing more of the other parts of the scientific method. Do more research, collect more data. But at the end of the day, it's like the old SNL joke about the Change Bank: "How do we make a profit? Volume."
I suppose maybe I am a being a bit too harsh: if we could actually show that there is a direct link between CO2 in the atmosphere and our activity, that would be something. Like, if we could show that man creates a certain amount of CO2, and that this is closely correlated through some verifiable formula to the amount of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, that would be something. But we've can't.
I'll be further charitable: they really believe in their hypothesis. They correctly note that the greenhouse effect can happen, and probably does happen. They note that we create CO2, and that the CO2 goes into the air. They don't, however, know how much CO2 stays up there. They're just guessing.
It's not their guesses or lack of ability to test those guesses that makes them so myopic, though: it's their utter lack of imagination. They see a particular theory that sounds good, that makes some sense, and they are incapable of imagining other explanations, or that other explanations even could exist at all.
But maybe you don't understand the scientific method. That is implied when you say that since current results demonstrate greater effects than the models, we should not assume that in the future, the effects will be smaller: your implication is that the effects will likely be greater because the model underpredicted before, and is therefore likely to underpredict again. But no, science says no such thing. Rather, science says the model was poor and cannot be trusted.
Sea levels *are* rising
And since we cannot demonstrate WHY, we therefore have no scientific reason to assume any rising will continue. And note that sea levels have risen regularly, virtually every year, for centuries, and are still rising at a pretty slow rate now (probably no more than double the annual rate, in the last 10 years, as in the previous several centuries).
record temperatures *are* being recorded each and every year
First, that's simply false. The year previous to the most recent showed a dip, as did several others in the past decade (about half of the years since 2010 were decreased from the previous year).
Second, it's quite clear that we have serious problems in our measurements (such as comparing different years from the same locations, even though those locations had changed due to additional surrounding buildings, and so on). The "temperature record" is mostly a joke. It gives us perhaps a reasonable ballpark for what's going on, but anyone who thinks we actually have a clear picture of some "worldwide temperature" is smoking some terrific goo. The planet doesn't work that way.
arctic ice cover *is* shrinking every year, Greenland ice sheets *are* melting and moving faster than we've ever seen them. Should we just ignore those documented facts?
As they did long before we came around with our massive CO2 production. And then they grew back. Now they are shrinking again. How do you explain that? If you
By dumping in so much carbon from outside the 'natural' processes
Thank you for putting "natural" in quotes, because in fact NO non-natural processes are taking place. But I am afraid you're going to have to say which natural processes are bad, and which are good, and why.
you don't think that's going to cause any issue?
You think they are? Why? You can't demonstrate they have, or will, cause any issues. But you demand people believe in those issues anyway, else they are an "idiot."
From your head in the sand ostrich positions, logic and science do certainly look elitist...
You're the one denying logic and science by expressing the viewpoint that we must believe things even if we can't prove them.
Are you saying you can't require kids to bring pencils, erasers, or paper?
Of course you can't. What do you propose do if kids don't bring those things? Again, the district is obligated to provide school for everyone, and except for gross misconduct which makes the child impossible to keep IN the school, they can't kick them out. They'd be violating their legal mandate.
Are you saying the school should provide those for kids who cannot or will not bring them?
Are you saying it sounds like I did? I never said anything to that point, obviously. You're quite obtuse.
That said, public schools usually do precisely that for kids who can't, or won't, provide their own supplies.
Does mandatory schooling say that a kid has to go to a specific school?
What it says is that the local district must provide schooling. The student may use other schooling options as allowed by law.
The school could kick them out under certain circumstances...
Because the district must provide schooling for all children, there are very strict circumstances where public schools are allowed to kick kids out, and it usually won't include being unwilling to supply toilet paper.
Although even if they can't kick them out, they could close the bathroom.
If they want a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, sure.
Nothing in mandatory schooling says that the school is required to provide bathroom facilities.
Funny thing about mandatory schooling... you can't require kids to bring things. What are you going to do, kick them out?
Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ...
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I get that. My thought is usually that if I don't have a reason to use it, I don't think it is awesome, which I realize is a bit constraining, but I have a busy life. I'll let other people think it is awesome in my stead, and if they come up with a reason to use it I didn't think of, then I'll reconsider.:-)
Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ...
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, they hyped it more than explained it, which is ALWAYS a red flag.
Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ...
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Yeah, eldavojohn, I knew what it was and tried and never thought of a reason why I would want to spend time trying it again. I didn't even play around with it for a day... maybe 15 minutes, got bored, moved on, never looked back.
I suspect most people who tried it did similarly.
The thing about putting Gmail inside it is that then it might have given someone a reason to use it. As it stood, most people had no reason to use it.
It was a busy and complicated solution to a problem almost no one had.
Something like that can become self-fulfilling. If enough people think Palin will become the 2012 nominee, then the party bosses may act on the assumption that those same people want her to become the nominee, and eventually the president.
Nope.:-) Won't happen. Parties see this sort of thing all the time. They are usually much smarter than that. Many candidates have a strong base of popularity, but a hard ceiling that makes them simply poor candidates. Howard Dean is a good example from the left: he could never get over about 30%. Many people thought he would win the nomination, but he was in the exact same boat: he never had a serious chance of winning, at all. Huckabee, same thing.
In any event, if wisdom of crowds had any accuracy then all of the American Idol winners would be chart topping successes.
Not at all. Those people just pick the best on the TV show, which is not logically related to who will have the best solo recording career.
As I noted elsewhere, the stock market itself is a bit different. People aren't just betting on increases, but on decreases, and the bets significantly affect the outcome.
Its also perhaps worth noting that the governments in developed democracies with systems like this tend to be among the worst of those in developed democracies, when measured by opinion of the government held by the citizenry.
That's a fantastic thing. The lower the opinion of the people, the less they will look to government, the less they will entrust to government... sounds good to me.
But if your motivation is to have people point at your comment and emote somehow (laugh, get angry, befriend you, whatever)
There, fixed that for you.
Incorrect.
Don't encourage misuse of language
I never did.
when there exists a verb form already.
Incorrect.
Where you went wrong is that I was referring to the specific act of, on social networking sites, choosing to make someone your "Friend," and it is perfectly valid use of the English language to say that you are "friending" that person.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting, is all - nearly all Windows malware these days is "a bad application you chose to install AND chose to give root privs to", and yet the amount of malware on Windows is still seen as a good reason for switching to a Mac.
You keep using this passive language attacking some other. I've NEVER heard someone saying that a reason to switch from Windows is that you might purposely install an app designed to hurt you. Maybe some people say that, but I never hear it, and I could not possibly care less, as it has no bearing on the actual computers.
Also Microsoft support don't as far as I know care about whether it was your fault that your computer got infected, and neither do the press.
And I don't care about the press.
As far as MS support goes, well, presumably that is because it IS so pervasive a problem, they have no choice but to address it. This obviously isn't the case with Mac OS X, where I can count the number of people I know who have been infected on my fist (that is, zero). This isn't to say one is better than the other, obviously: it's just to say that it is not a big problem on the Mac at this time.
Arguably they shouldn't because it's Microsoft and Apples' fault that it's so hard for users to make an informed decision.
It's not hard: don't install something without researching it first, and knowing what you're installing. This is not hard at all. Google the app name, find reviews from trusted sources, get your downloads from trusted sources. Very easy.
That's the other odd thing. Mac OS X isn't very secure - as this demonstrates
False. In fact, this case has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with security. If Mac OS X is not "secure" in this case, then neither is any operating system ever that allows you to install software of your choice on it, and allows you, the user, access to have something similar to root privileges.
You're being stupid.
it's nearly as easy for a website to install software as it was on Windows when Microsoft still thought ActiveX was a good idea
You're lying. A "web site" installed nothing at all: a user did it, with purpose, intention, and full knowledge.
see that's the deal.
What? I clearly demonstrated that what you said is, in fact, not true, and you say, "see that's the deal" as if it somehow proved your point (which, again, I clearly demonstrated is not true)?
Really?
guys like you are in love with an Apple computer that doesn't exist anymore.
Well, no ... I am using it right now.
The mass market shinies they sell to the rest of the planet are advertised as electronic miracles that never fail and let even an idiot use them.
Are you really, seriously, here to whine about the mass media? That's your point, that Macs suck because of what people say about them?
That's great you're a command line wizard, but Macs are not really targeting you
Yes, they are. You're ignorant.
... and in fact Apple makes a point of telling people they don't need to be like you to use one.
Yes ... different types of users can use the same type of computer. And?
In the mind of most of the Mac users I know, you'd look like the PC guy in an Apple commercial.
Again, how does that reflect on the computer itself? (psssst: it doesn't.)
It's sad, you can see the denial starts at Apple and flows right on down to the fanboy level.
Um ... the only thing I've "denied" was your false statements about how I see and use the computer, and that what people say about the computer actually reflects on the computer itself. You've said nothing of substance about the computer that even COULD be denied.
Iphone4, mac hardware issues, malware, it's always the same song: deny, deny, deny, blame user if that doesn't work. some good kool-aid i guess.
You're a great big fucking douchebag.
Errm... you know where most Windows malware infections come from these days, right?
Not really, no. Nor do I care, and neither do my comments have anything to do with Windows. :-)
If you're trying to make the argument that "these days" Windows is about as secure as a Mac, I'd doubt it, because I know people who still get lots of viruses ... but whatever, I really don't care. I wasn't making a comparison to other platforms.
you guys are great.
Thanks!
Mac folks praise the hand holding and the fact that a Mac just won't let you do anything bad.
Dude, I live on the command line in my Mac. Won't let me do anything bad? On what planet?
Then in the same breath they say, well you're just stupid, it's your fault the hand holding, infallible Mac didn't stop you.
Nope: I say that on any platform that DOES give you the freedom Mac OS X gives you, this is literally unavoidable (well, except by being knowledgable enough to not do stupid things like installing rogue software and giving it root privs).
Can you guys just make up your minds?
Can you stop shooting down straw men?
Apple employees are directed to not help you fix a problem with a bad application you chose to install AND chose to give root privs to.
And ... ?
Blu-Ray costs more, can only be used in one device in my home (as opposed to five or six for DVD), and can't be ripped to be used on many other devices in my home. If I want HD, and am going to be locked in anyway, I might as well buy from iTunes: I don't have to worry about ripping it myself, and I can use it on many devices in my home.
I've never bought a Blu-Ray movie except for when it comes in the combo pack, so I get the free download with it.
Shrug. Then we end this without you providing ANY evidence to back up ANY of your assertions.
if people can see and smell smoke, I'm likely to call the fire dept rather than wait for the full blaze to erupt. If you'd rather wait for the blaze, then, yes, you're an idiot.
If you think that analogy makes sense, YOU'RE an idiot. I am not against calling the fire department: I am against the fire department flooding the house before they check to make sure what the actual cause of the smoke is.
those changes ending being worse than we can currently predict. That last point is most definitely a fact.
Absolutely false.
Actually that is a fact. The models that we had back in the 1970s showed certain results. We now know that the actual results are worse than the models worse case.
False. We know that the results WERE (in some cases) worse. You have absolutely no scientific or rational basis for saying that this trend of being worse will continue.
So the fact that the predictions weren't harsh enough means that you'd somehow conclude that any predictions must be completely unrealistic?
No. I make no such conclusion. Science dictates that we do not do so. YOU are the one trying to reach a conclusion here, and you have no scientific basis to do so.
... unless you have some evidence that the models are getting worse?
You have it backward. YOU have to have evidence that the incorrect models will continue to be incorrect in the same basic way as before. You have no such evidence.
Yes I'm 'trusting' scientists on this point.
There's no science in what you described.
So to refute my position you compare it to the completely farcical concept of supreme deities?
No. I compared your type of argument to the exact same type of argument.
Science has evidence
And YOU do not: hence, you are not describing science.
So we're down to the 'me first' idea.
No. We are down to the "don't cause **anyone** harm unless it's necessary" idea. And you can't demonstrate it is necessary. So instead, you lie about the evidence and attack anyone who is rightfully skeptical of it.
My argument against skepticism is against unfounded skepticism.
You're lying.
The claims started with 'it isn't happening'.
You're lying. Shakrai said no such thing, nor implied it in any way. Yet you still called him an "idiot."
When evidence mounts that, gee, it is happening and doing so fairly rapidly, the claims shift to "we couldn't possibly be affecting the climate, so it must be natural".
You're lying. I only questioned the claim that it is caused by humans (and I pointed out the fact that humans are natural; please stop confusing the language by pretending otherwise). I did not say man is NOT causing it, nor did I remotely make any such implication.
The 'skeptics' are far more ignorant of reality, sorry.
Than you? Some of them, perhaps. Not me, certainly: I actually understand science, for example, and you do not. You make grand claims about "facts" without any actual factual basis. And you call people "idiots" for being skeptical, and then you lie about what their skepticism is about.
You're a tool. And you are not very good at this.
Just pointing out that using the IPCC as a source on climate change may not be the best way to be thought as credible.
I fully agree ... unfortunately, the "climate change" community uses the IPCC as the basis for, literally, almost all of their claims.
Gravity isn't 'fact' either
Yes, it is. We don't know how it works, but we know it exists. It is a fact.
I fully agree that not all the data are in on climate change.
Then fuck you for calling people "idiots" for being skeptical. Come on now ... you admit skepticism is justified by decry its existence.
But the data we do have strongly points towards us causing the changes and those changes ending being worse than we can currently predict. That last point is most definitely a fact.
Absolutely false. As I already well-argued -- and as you did not rebut in the least -- a bad model that skews one way is not evidence that the future will continue to skew that way. It simply means the model is bad, and cannot be trusted. You're using terribly poor, unscientific, reasoning.
But more broadly, if a problem can't be completely quantified, but trends are starting to appear that, if fully realized, portend 'really bad' (tm) things, wouldn't it be prudent to start trying to address those things we are doing that feed into those trends?
You mean those things that we are doing that YOU THINK feed into those trends. And the short answer is: No. That is Pascal's Wager, and it's a fallacy. Pascal said, all things being equal, you can believe in God, or not. If you don't, you could go to hell; if you do, you could go to heaven, so why not believe in God?
But it fails to take into account that there are many untold negative consequences on the other side that are not taken into consideration. In the case of a belief in God, someone could do serious psychological damage to themselves by trying to force themselves to believe something that they really don't believe.
Now, you're not asking for my belief, only my submission. I am not sure if that is better. Regardless, asking me to damage my economic well-being for me and my family for the risk that my activity may be contributing to a problem for others is only justified if you have a damned good reason for actually believing my activity is harmful, and you'd damned well better be able to demonstrate it.
And you can't.
So instead, you all pretend that my skepticism isn't justified, even though you know it is, because it poses a threat to your agenda. That's what's really going on here. You really believe we are causing more and more warming, but you know you can't really show it, so you see -- correctly -- skepticism as a threat to the direction you think we should go. That's all reasonable. But what is not reasonable, what is anti-science and evil, is lying about the strength of your evidence and the reasonableness of skepticism in order to get your agenda realized.
What's any of that got to do with anything?
What point of mine are you responding to, and how does your response negate that point?
The *vast* majority of science today agrees that we are in fact having effects on the climate.
The IPCC disagrees with them. The IPCC says that it is "very likely," not "fact," that we are having a significant impact on the climate.
And -- in fact -- anyone who considers significant AGW to be a "fact" is damned ignorant, or simply hates science. You've heard of the scientific method, right? Hypothesize, test, conclude. The problem with AGW is that it cannot reasonably be tested on a significant scale: we cannot test what would happen in the world without humans. Obviously.
Many scientists know this and just don't give a damn: they figure that since we can't really test it, they can make up for it by doing more of the other parts of the scientific method. Do more research, collect more data. But at the end of the day, it's like the old SNL joke about the Change Bank: "How do we make a profit? Volume."
I suppose maybe I am a being a bit too harsh: if we could actually show that there is a direct link between CO2 in the atmosphere and our activity, that would be something. Like, if we could show that man creates a certain amount of CO2, and that this is closely correlated through some verifiable formula to the amount of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, that would be something. But we've can't.
I'll be further charitable: they really believe in their hypothesis. They correctly note that the greenhouse effect can happen, and probably does happen. They note that we create CO2, and that the CO2 goes into the air. They don't, however, know how much CO2 stays up there. They're just guessing.
It's not their guesses or lack of ability to test those guesses that makes them so myopic, though: it's their utter lack of imagination. They see a particular theory that sounds good, that makes some sense, and they are incapable of imagining other explanations, or that other explanations even could exist at all.
But maybe you don't understand the scientific method. That is implied when you say that since current results demonstrate greater effects than the models, we should not assume that in the future, the effects will be smaller: your implication is that the effects will likely be greater because the model underpredicted before, and is therefore likely to underpredict again. But no, science says no such thing. Rather, science says the model was poor and cannot be trusted.
Sea levels *are* rising
And since we cannot demonstrate WHY, we therefore have no scientific reason to assume any rising will continue. And note that sea levels have risen regularly, virtually every year, for centuries, and are still rising at a pretty slow rate now (probably no more than double the annual rate, in the last 10 years, as in the previous several centuries).
record temperatures *are* being recorded each and every year
First, that's simply false. The year previous to the most recent showed a dip, as did several others in the past decade (about half of the years since 2010 were decreased from the previous year).
Second, it's quite clear that we have serious problems in our measurements (such as comparing different years from the same locations, even though those locations had changed due to additional surrounding buildings, and so on). The "temperature record" is mostly a joke. It gives us perhaps a reasonable ballpark for what's going on, but anyone who thinks we actually have a clear picture of some "worldwide temperature" is smoking some terrific goo. The planet doesn't work that way.
arctic ice cover *is* shrinking every year, Greenland ice sheets *are* melting and moving faster than we've ever seen them. Should we just ignore those documented facts?
As they did long before we came around with our massive CO2 production. And then they grew back. Now they are shrinking again. How do you explain that? If you
By dumping in so much carbon from outside the 'natural' processes
Thank you for putting "natural" in quotes, because in fact NO non-natural processes are taking place. But I am afraid you're going to have to say which natural processes are bad, and which are good, and why.
you don't think that's going to cause any issue?
You think they are? Why? You can't demonstrate they have, or will, cause any issues. But you demand people believe in those issues anyway, else they are an "idiot."
From your head in the sand ostrich positions, logic and science do certainly look elitist...
You're the one denying logic and science by expressing the viewpoint that we must believe things even if we can't prove them.
Why do you hate science?
now tell us
No. You sure make a lot of demands for a coward.
you can't require kids to bring things
Are you saying you can't require kids to bring pencils, erasers, or paper?
Of course you can't. What do you propose do if kids don't bring those things? Again, the district is obligated to provide school for everyone, and except for gross misconduct which makes the child impossible to keep IN the school, they can't kick them out. They'd be violating their legal mandate.
Are you saying the school should provide those for kids who cannot or will not bring them?
Are you saying it sounds like I did? I never said anything to that point, obviously. You're quite obtuse.
That said, public schools usually do precisely that for kids who can't, or won't, provide their own supplies.
Does mandatory schooling say that a kid has to go to a specific school?
What it says is that the local district must provide schooling. The student may use other schooling options as allowed by law.
The school could kick them out under certain circumstances...
Because the district must provide schooling for all children, there are very strict circumstances where public schools are allowed to kick kids out, and it usually won't include being unwilling to supply toilet paper.
Although even if they can't kick them out, they could close the bathroom.
If they want a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, sure.
Nothing in mandatory schooling says that the school is required to provide bathroom facilities.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Funny thing about mandatory schooling ... you can't require kids to bring things. What are you going to do, kick them out?
Yeah, I get that. My thought is usually that if I don't have a reason to use it, I don't think it is awesome, which I realize is a bit constraining, but I have a busy life. I'll let other people think it is awesome in my stead, and if they come up with a reason to use it I didn't think of, then I'll reconsider. :-)
Yeah, they hyped it more than explained it, which is ALWAYS a red flag.
Yeah, eldavojohn, I knew what it was and tried and never thought of a reason why I would want to spend time trying it again. I didn't even play around with it for a day ... maybe 15 minutes, got bored, moved on, never looked back.
I suspect most people who tried it did similarly.
The thing about putting Gmail inside it is that then it might have given someone a reason to use it. As it stood, most people had no reason to use it.
It was a busy and complicated solution to a problem almost no one had.
I'd guess that you're a rabid communist, coming out with this absurd argument to make conservatives sound stupid, but I may be wrong.
Not just wrong, but a moron.
Something like that can become self-fulfilling. If enough people think Palin will become the 2012 nominee, then the party bosses may act on the assumption that those same people want her to become the nominee, and eventually the president.
Nope. :-) Won't happen. Parties see this sort of thing all the time. They are usually much smarter than that. Many candidates have a strong base of popularity, but a hard ceiling that makes them simply poor candidates. Howard Dean is a good example from the left: he could never get over about 30%. Many people thought he would win the nomination, but he was in the exact same boat: he never had a serious chance of winning, at all. Huckabee, same thing.
In any event, if wisdom of crowds had any accuracy then all of the American Idol winners would be chart topping successes.
Not at all. Those people just pick the best on the TV show, which is not logically related to who will have the best solo recording career.
As I noted elsewhere, the stock market itself is a bit different. People aren't just betting on increases, but on decreases, and the bets significantly affect the outcome.
Its also perhaps worth noting that the governments in developed democracies with systems like this tend to be among the worst of those in developed democracies, when measured by opinion of the government held by the citizenry.
That's a fantastic thing. The lower the opinion of the people, the less they will look to government, the less they will entrust to government ... sounds good to me.
Can you guess which "half" I am on? :-)
But if your motivation is to have people point at your comment and emote somehow (laugh, get angry, befriend you, whatever)
There, fixed that for you.
Incorrect.
Don't encourage misuse of language
I never did.
when there exists a verb form already.
Incorrect.
Where you went wrong is that I was referring to the specific act of, on social networking sites, choosing to make someone your "Friend," and it is perfectly valid use of the English language to say that you are "friending" that person.
You're welcome.
Yeah, the stock market is a poor example for many reasons, including that the bets themselves can significantly affect the outcome.