We're still disagreeing here; I don't see any way whatsoever, even in theory, that such a computer model could be built. So how are we disagreeing?
I'm speaking philosophically here. Of course it's impossible in the real world, we seem to agree on that or at least you're mostly convinced, but I believe it's impossible even in theory. I think you're probably right. I just am unwilling to close the door on the possibility. I said "I doubt such a thing is possible," and I meant that philosophically. In theory.
For example, if your model doesn't include ecological changes to the migration patterns of the monarch butterfly (its little wings decrease albedo), it fails to take that factor into consideration. In fact it has to model each beat of their wings, as the disturbances in the air can cause tropical storms months later. Exactly.
I don't believe we are actually in disagreement here.
Is there any way that anyone could build a computer model of any complex system that changes over time that takes into account every possible contributing variable or formula that anyone could ever think of?While I doubt such a thing is possible (and that even if it were, that it could be proven to be an accurate representation), I didn't want to discount it out-of-hand. You asked for a hypothetical example, and absent a controlled experiment (which is more likely to be possible, though still very difficult), that's the only other hypothetical example I could think of.
If you have some other method to show causation, I'd like to know what it is.
Is there any possible way that a scientific paper on this subject could, to your mind, show causation? If so please provide a hypothetical example.Off the top of my head, if we could do one of two things (there may be more, but this is just what comes to mind), we could show causation. The first would be a computer model that takes every potential factor into consideration. Another would be a controlled experiment where we can make changes and see the results, etc. Obviously, neither of these is possible at this time. I am open to other ideas.
That showing causation at this time may not be possible, however, is not a problem for my argument, but for yours. Just because showing causation is not currently possible (if indeed it is not) doesn't mean you get to say correlation is good enough. That's not science.
After citing one of McIntyre and McKitrick's papers in a peer-reviewed social-science journal (I would have picked their one example from a more serious journal, the Geophysical Research Letters 2005 paper, but OK), you went straight to:
In fact, out of M&M's 10 claims, only one was sortof discredited...
Your link proving that "fact" was to a webpage set up by McIntyre and McKitrick themselves.
... and?
I thought we were talking about science and how we know scientific debate is occurring or not. You apparently still don't understand that scientists self-publishing doesn't count
I was publishing it as a useful summary. Since when is that disallowed? The main point was the actual peer-reviewed paper I linked to, which addressed the majority of claims in the summary, in detail. If I had left out the link to the summary, it would not have weakened my position at all. It was just added so you could better understand the issues without troubling yourself to actually look at the peer-reviewed article, and because it traced some of the history of the existing peer-reviewed papers in the discussion. There is nothing remotely improper about my adding that link.
If I had added that link, and there was no mention of a recent paper in it, and I had not added in any other information about recent papers, well, that would be improper. It's a good thing I didn't do that.
Anyway, to avoid further digression, I'll allow that the scientific debate over the "hockey stick" graph has not quite ended yet.
Which was, of course, my point, so it's troubling that you said I "blew it" when in fact I gave you precisely what you asked for in order to back up the point of mine that you claimed was false. My truth is a bit too inconvenient for you, I guess.
Give that just a few years, probably. From what I've read, McIntyre and McKitrick's analysis on that topic is so flawed, and has been dissected so thoroughly, that, real soon now, it's going to turn into an embarrassment for any serious journal that publishes their work.
What you've read is wrong.
Maybe the methods used to draw the "hockey stick" were flawed (though it's not looking that way).
Then you should really read M&M's recent paper.
Getting back to what I actually said in the review of the movie, that has no impact on what I identified as Gore's main point
Funny how you attack me even though none of what you said has had an impact on MY main point, and then you say this. Boggling. (Also, you should really be using the <quote> tag!)
There are minor errors. They don't detract from Gore's main point, on which the scientific debate has ended. And the main point is scary, and almost too big to think about or talk about. The earth is warming, because of us.
Except, of course, as everyone knows, this isn't true (that the scientific debate on this has ended). And to the extent is true, the scientists who claim the debate is, or should be, over, are not worthy of being called scientists, because the unassailable fact is that there has never been causation actually shown. Only correlation. The "hockey stick graph," even if upheld, shows no causation whatsoever. To say the debate has ended because of correlation is, simply, a very stupid thing to do. But that's what you're claiming, and that's what many scientists are claiming. And it's sad.
And then as to the rest, that "big changes are coming" and "our best estimates are that it's going to be really bad," how can you sit there with a straight face and say the debate has ended over such things which are not remotely provable and haven't happened yet? This is gues
we arrived almost immediately at the part about science that you don't understandFalse. What IS true, however, is that we arrived immediately at the part where you are a prick (the initial "review" where you falsely claimed the debate was over, even though you later explicitly admitted you were lying when you said that). And now you continue being a prick. Kudos.
I am not pointing out merely that "some people disagree."I know. You are merely pointing out that some people disagree, and that you agree with those people. Whoopee. Please don't pretend that your experts are right just because they agree with you, because it's really embarassing for you.
You may be used to philosophical and religious discussions, where disagreements are not resolvable definitively and argumentation is a matter of superior persuasion. But this is science; your sarcasm has no power here.Neither does your prickness.
But that doesn't change the fact that nothing you presented actually proved McIntyre and McKitrick to be wrong, any more than McIntyre and McKitrick actually proved Mann to be wrong (even though I think the evidence shows Mann was wrong). Or do you mean because it is in peer-reviewed journals, that makes it right? Since when? And how does that square since McIntyre's and McKitrick's original work was in a peer-reviewed science journal, and continues to appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals, later than the citations you made (e.g. this paper, published in Energy and Environment in 2005)?
In fact, out of M&M's 10 claims, only one was sortof discredited, and it was because Mann et al never made their full data available, and when they did (after M&M's first article), it showed even greater problems than originally realized, and further show the previously undisclosed methodology that led to the M&M error was also flawed in other ways (including whether the methodology itself was valid, whether it was properly applied, and whether the selected proxies themselves have any validity).
You just showed by linking to those other URLs that the debate continues. But you already conceded that anyway...
Your claims are wrong.Which ones? They are all correct, in fact.
You may want to start reading here:Oooo. Since some people disagree, therefore McIntyre and McKitrick are wrong.
The "excellent primer" was debunked a week or two ago.
Actually, no, it was not. Perhaps some of its claims were debunked, I don't know; but the central claim I cited in it -- that the main data backing up the global warming theory was based on fudged data -- certainly has not been debunked. The "debunker" didn't even attempt to do so.
I am not fully on board with Monckton, and I realized he got some things wrong. But so did Mann in his UN graph, when he fudged the numbers to get their hockey stick graph. They cherry picked their methodology and specifically left out "censored data" (the UN's phrase).
Quick summary: the Mann model was based on bristlecone pines, which the UN had previously stated should NOT be used because they are unreliable, given the 20th century's reliance on CO2-based fertilizers that accelerated growth. And not only was the bristlecone pine dataset used, it was emphasize 390 times more than the other datasets. Other researchers (actual scientists!) swapped out the other non-bristlecone pine datasets with random noise, and the results STILL showed the "hockey stick" graph. Removing the bristlecone pine data (or properly deemphasizing it so it is treated equal to the rest), and the medieval warming period reappears. Funny that.
Again, I am not claiming Monckton is right, and that global warming does not exist. I've repeatedly said here (and told you many times) that it may exist, though I am unconvinced, and that I think we should take some reasonable measures to address the potential problems. But that doesn't mean the Goreists are all right, and this is one big example where the data is simply wrong.
Whether there was a medieval warming period, I don't know. But I do know Mann et al fudged the data to make it look like there wasn't.
Hey, got some data for those nice little statements there?
Which? The causation/"coincidence" one, no, I have no authoritative link: it's hard to prove a negative. The claim being made is that man causes global warming, but the data does not show that. It shows only correlation, not causation. This is true. If you disagree, show me one paper that actually shows causation. I'll wait.
As to the fudged data stuff, sure, that's widely known and understood. This is an excellent primer to the issues involved, and touches on many of the other problems with the global warming "consensus." The most startling fudging is the omission of the medieval warming period from the UN "hockey stick" graph (which was done absolutely intentionally). But there are others.
You really do a good job playing the part of an arrogrant prick.
Back at you.
Here's a tip: replying with a "False" to statements doesn't really make much of a case, it just makes you look like more of an ass.
Only if you are already predisposed to think so. Look at what I used that word to respond to: statements about ME. He said I didn't understand the problem, and that I prejudged the conclusion. He was an ass to make such unwarranted statements, and I have no need to defend myself from such accusations. If you were actually interested in the cases being made, you would have responded to his ad hominem attacks, instead of my responses to them.
There is a scientific consensus that global warming is real and anthropogenic.
Consensus != absence of debate. Unless by "consensus" you mean "almost all scientists agree" in which case there is no consensus.
Gore made a movie and no one filed a suit for scientific dishonesty.
So? Why would they? People usually don't filaw lawsuits over such things. Despite the nonsensical recent court ruling declaring Intelligent Design to be unscientific, courtrooms are actually terrible places to determine science.
Scientists made sample searches and found no scientific papers that disputed global warming, and a vast majority considered it anthropogenic.
Which is a fallacy, of course, on more than one level. First, because I did not dispute global warming, just the notion that it is caused by man, and that it will have the effects foretold by Gore and his ilk. Second, because merely "considering" it anthropogenic (which is in fact what most of them do) is far from scientific evidence that it is anthropogenic. Third, because there's a well-documented bias against people who question global warming (in any sense) so the lack of published papers could just as easily be further evidence of bias.
So, who are you, and what are your sources and arguments, to suddenly post here on Slashdot that every scientist is wrong?
Who are you to misrepresent what I said, and what the scientists said? As I just pointed out, I did not question global warming, and even if I had, it is quite clear that not "every scientist" thinks global warming is real anyway. And as YOU pointed out, not "every scientist" actually says they think it is caused by man, despite your contradictory claim here.
Well, says who? What data, in which studies? To what extent? Did you check the data yourself, or do you rely on someone else, and if so who?
If I really cared about your opinion I'd dredge up all the evidence. I am busy and I really don't want to get into an in-depth discussion of it.
Sure, a boulder falling on your head is indeed going to provide shelter from rain. But that's not the main concern you have when you see a boulder falling on you.
Sure, and an umbrella falling on your head will also protect you from rain.
That's your problem, you are in denial.
Nope. That's you, pal. Even the author of the review above aditted he was using hyperbole, and that the debate is, in fact, not over.
Get over it, global warming is real, it is happening
Maybe. I'd give it slightly better than 50-50 chances.
and anthropogenic CO2 is responsible
This is not remotely proven. There is nothing more than correlation actually shown by the data. No causation.
You simply won't admit that you have a problem
Neither will you.
and you have to do something about it.
See, that's where you could not be more wrong. I am, in fact, in favor of common-sense solutions to cut CO2 and other pollutants, because while I recognize the fact that global warming and its causes are far from proven, I also recognize it is possible it's true, and we should do some reasonable things to address the problem. But hey, nice jumping to conclusions!
The big problem here is that Goreists don't recognize that options like Kyoto are, for many reasons, simply unreasonable.
You are approaching a problem you do not understand
False.
with an answer you already made up
False.
That's the approach of religious fundamentalism, science works the other way around.
Not in this case, no, as the data proves. If this were true, the debate would absolutely not be over, since there's no actual causation shown between manmade increases in CO2 and global warming. Even Goreists accept this fact.
That's simply disingenous. With the Big Bang, there's no other reasonable theories that exist right now because no one can even conceive of alternate possibilities to match the data we have. With global-warming-caused-by-man, there are innumerable potential theories, and right at the top of the list is "it's merely coincidental." The data doesn't show anything significant beyond coincidence. And frankly, even that's mostly because the data has been fudged.
Also, your claim that things are going to get worse has *no* serious grounding in available data. Even the fudged data. It's make-believe. For all we know, even if "global warming" was caused by man, it could end up being a net benefit to mankind. Also, according to all this Goreish interpretation of the data, it's quite possible we'd be headed into a global *cooling* period right now without man, in which far *more* lives would be lost.
I just can't agree with the notion that the debate is over, or even that it is over with a very high degree of certainty. And I just can't agree that any data at all shows that "global warming" is a net loss for mankind. The science simply doesn't show either one.
It isn't a foreign policy document. But it WAS written to be exclusively for the people of the United States, and consciously so. They wouldn't have even dreamed of trying to make it apply to anyone else.
I was saying that since it was already covered in the DoI as "self-evident", they didn't need to mention that the BoR applied to all people (to the best they could), not just people of the united states
Except, that's not true. The Bill of Rights DOES only apply to the people of the United States. (Note, I am not saying "citizens" of the United States.) This is absolutely clear, and true. The DoI is not law. It's a statement of principles. And it says that BECAUSE of the principle that all men are created equal and have rights, THEREFORE they should select their own government, and the Constitution defines part of that government. But if you are not a part of that (again, not necessarily a citizen, but in the United States), then none of the Constitution applies to you, unless it explicitly says so.
The funny part, is that you follow up that *stunning* display of ignorance about the roles of both the President & the Courts with this gem: And yes, the President should, and will, abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. There's no question about that.
That's also not wrong.
Excuse me? No question? The above statement and your point (C) directly contradict one another.
Well, no, they don't. What's stunning is that you would think they do. The "above statement" is in the context of this particular situation, and "(C)" was related to a hypothetical crazy decision the Court might come up with, which isn't the case with this particular situation: either way the Court goes, it would not be, in the words I used, "blatantly and unquestionably unconstitutional."
Just to be clear, I was referring to "unitary executive" as described by John Yoo, not the literal interpretation of the words "unitary" and "executive".
Perhaps you think what I said about the President having the authority to interpret the Constitution on his own, until the Court steps in, as part of the "unitary executive theory." You're wrong. It's a separate notion. And it's unquestionably true anyway.
Either way, you seriously need a remedial class in civics.
Straw man, and ad hominem. Two for one!
Perhaps you've absorbed too many talking points to recall exactly how the balance between the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches work.
Nope. I understand it quite well; you're the one in error.
Seriously, this Republican controlled Congress may have given up on their job and refused to do anything about a Republican President usurping their powers
Congress has no power to enforce its interpretation of the Constitution on the President.
Show me where in the Constitution you think the Congress has this power. Congress can haul the President to the Supreme Court; Congress can impeach the President if he doesn't abide by the will of the Court; Congress can participate in the changing of the Constitution. Congress cannot interpret the Constitution for the President. Such a notion is complete nonsense.
You said the things I said were wrong, but you haven't actually backed any of it up. I wonder why that is... ?
the three branches are designed to be interlocking and limited
And nothing I said contradicts that.
the executive cannot and does not override the others as some sort of king
Correct. He does, however, override them as some sort of President.
The President has all the power of the Executive. It is his job to execute the laws in the context of his intepretation of the Constitution. If Congress disagrees with his interpretation as executed, they can sue him, and then the Court decides.
Nowhere does the Constitution say the Congress gets to enforce its interpretation of the Constitution on the President, and on the contrary, it says the Supreme Court alone has the jursidiction to resolve disputes under the Constitution.
But hey, you get points for trying. At least you raised your hand!
That's the excuse for everything. You name it, and some pro-security / anti-terrorism phrase will be tossed out, regardless of how irrelevant it factually is. Must be nice to have a bugaboo for all occasions.
Any time you have a legal appeal, you have to weigh the potential damage done by enforcing the previous ruling, or not. Clearly, there is significant potential for damage if you do not stay the decision (which is part of the reason why even the initial judge, who excoriated the Bush administration over this program, didn't enforce her own decision). It's not about national security, it's about the normal legal process of balancing potential harms during a pending appeal.
Let us please remember that, for all its florid prose, the Declaration of Independence was primarily a propaganda tool to drum up support against an unpopular king an ocean away.
In part. But so what? You think they didn't mean what they wrote?
Abraham Lincoln argued very persuasively TJ did mean it. Of course, not persuasively enough to beat Stephen Douglas, but still.
Perhaps the founding fathers didn't feel the need to reiterate that the Bill of Rights was a guideline for them to interact with the world as well as their own citizens because they already held it was a self evident truth that all men are created equal.
That makes no sense. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people of the United States from the government of the United States.
The Constitution says nothing about a "unitary executive"
False. It's right there at the beginning of Article II. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That simply means all the power of the Executive is vested in the President. Which is all "unitary executive" means.
You forgot to mention the part about how the President "shall take care that the laws [passed by the Congress and the Senate] be faithfully executed"
That is only for laws that are constitutional.
Are you claiming that his oath is to the Constitution means he gets to disregard the Laws of the country
If they are unconstitutional, yes. Absolutely. Hell, it's his obligation to do so, if he feels it is necessary.
& the Supreme Court's interpretation of those laws
Only if the Court's interpretation is blatantly and unquestionably unconstitutional. For example, if the Court said the President could serve only one term in office. Then hell yes, he should ignore that.
But the Court has not weighed in on this matter. That's the problem. And yes, the President should, and will, abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. There's no question about that.
But in our system, until the Court does weigh in on the matter (which can only happen through this process we are seeing now), it is the responsibility of the President to interpret the Constitution for himself. It is a violation of the separation of powers for the Congress to try to force its interpretation of the Constitution on the President, through any means other than appealing to the Court (including impeachment: you do not resolve an interpretation dispute through any means other than the Court).
cause, in other situations they call that a Dictatorship.
And what do they call logical fallacies in other situations?
The bigger question is: does the President have the power to unilaterally declare someone an enemy with no judicial oversight/recourse?
Yes, absolutely. Just not without Congressional oversight/recourse. The Supreme Court has extremely limited rights to step in; however, one of their more important roles is settling disputes between the Congress and the President, which is what this is.
My main fear with this case is that the people who brought it have questionable standing to bring it in the first place, and the Supremes might toss the case out without really deciding it.
OK boys and girls, all together now: "Hail King George". If you didn't join the chant, you are obviously an enemy.
Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications.
I tend to agree, but there's a ton of precedent suggesting otherwise, including the recent FISA Court of Review opinion that says Congress *cannot* prevent the President from such activity.
The only visible reason to skip getting a warrant (which will be granted, literally, over 99.99% of the time) is to get away with things that you don't want a judge knowing about.
Perhaps, but that only points out the fact that there's a lot we don't know about this program, that isn't "visible."
Anyway, the main point I have to make is that only the Supreme Court can resolve this, so why is everyone so uptight about it continuing in the meantime, when that's how this has to proceed? There's no other way.
The problem is that anyone who says this is blatantly/irrefutably/clearly/etc. unconstitutional is, in fact, either ignorant or a liar.
There's a ton of case law and precedent that justifies this program.
The simple fact of the matter is that because of the history of this issue -- many decades of similar behavior, the recent FISA court of review ruling, other court cases, etc. all finding in favor of this and similar programs -- there's only one court that can solve this dilemma, and it's unreasonable to accept the judgment of a lower court on the matter.
I tend to think the program is not unconstitutional (as most lawyers do, including most Democrats in the Senate), but that the President doesn't have the authority to do it against the will of the Congress. But there's tons of precedent saying otherwise. Only the Supremes can decide it, and no one else should step in, in the meantime, to stop it.
Nice of you to put words in my mouth. How about we do a little thought exercise: If a politican who didn't support anti-pedophile legislation or claim to represent "traditional values" did the exact same thing as what Foley did, which one is worse?
They didn't do the exact same thing in real life, first of all. Studds was worse in that he actually had sex (and so far there's no indication Foley did); Foley was worse in that some of the boys he at least flirted with were younger, and there were (as best we know) more of them.
Second: both are hypocrites. What, you think the other guy has ever said in public, "I think pedophilia is OK"? Has ever stood up in support of pedophilia?
And even if he did -- and this is my main point -- who the hell CARES? How does being a hypocrite even MATTER after you've done something that bad? It's like the old Spinal Tap joke about the album cover, "how much more black can it be? and the answer is none more black." You're already "black" once you're a pedophile. Saying you're a hypocrite or a jaywalker or a glutton or a smoker or a fan of Britney Spears at that point just doesn't make you worse than you already are. It pales in comparison so much that it is irrelevant.
If William Jefferson had sponsored anti-bribery bills, then I'd call him a hypocrite too. And if there was a controversy about his party's leadership covering up that bribery, I similarly expect the media to at least label him correctly as a democrat. And if the democrats had run on an anti-bribery platform to the same extent that republicans have run on under "traditional values," then I would say that they were opening themselves up to the label of hypocrites as well.
Once you're caught bonking pages or being bribed for tens of thousands of dollars... who the hell CARES if you're also a hypocrite? How does that make a difference at all?
That's like saying Hitler opened himself up to criticism because he jaywalked. WHO CARES? Trees, meet forest.
As to the "controversy": it's invented. It doesn't exist. Not until SOME evidence supporting the allegation is presented; so far, there's none. Until then, it's a lie for political gain, just like most of the other Democratic allegations: of lying, of coverups, and the rest of the whole "culture of corruption" nonsense. Calling it a "controversy" implies there's two competing sides to the story, and right now, there's not: there is no evidence of a coverup.
The Democrats are the ones lying: either they have other evidence (which raises the question of how and when they got the evidence), or they are saying there's a coverup despite having no evidence to support the allegation.
You are, literally, saying that it is justified for the media to talk about Foley as a Republican based solely on the fact that the Democrats are lying about a coverup. By that standard, the GOP should have just made up a lie about the Democrats covering up Jefferson, in order to get the media to talk about Jefferson being a Democrat.
Going by what you just said, isn't it "irresponsible" for you to even be suggesting such things without proof?
Um... I didn't suggest it. I was noting what someone else suggested. And I said "if," unlike you, who asserted it as fact. And I wasn't looking to assign blame, but to merely provide a contrast in assigning blame (speculation about what the GOP knew, vs. speculation about what the Dems knew).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe we are actually in disagreement here.
Is there any way that anyone could build a computer model of any complex system that changes over time that takes into account every possible contributing variable or formula that anyone could ever think of?While I doubt such a thing is possible (and that even if it were, that it could be proven to be an accurate representation), I didn't want to discount it out-of-hand. You asked for a hypothetical example, and absent a controlled experiment (which is more likely to be possible, though still very difficult), that's the only other hypothetical example I could think of.
If you have some other method to show causation, I'd like to know what it is.
Is there any possible way that a scientific paper on this subject could, to your mind, show causation? If so please provide a hypothetical example.Off the top of my head, if we could do one of two things (there may be more, but this is just what comes to mind), we could show causation. The first would be a computer model that takes every potential factor into consideration. Another would be a controlled experiment where we can make changes and see the results, etc. Obviously, neither of these is possible at this time. I am open to other ideas.
That showing causation at this time may not be possible, however, is not a problem for my argument, but for yours. Just because showing causation is not currently possible (if indeed it is not) doesn't mean you get to say correlation is good enough. That's not science.
Pudge, you still blew it.
Huh. Then why do you agree with my point?
After citing one of McIntyre and McKitrick's papers in a peer-reviewed social-science journal (I would have picked their one example from a more serious journal, the Geophysical Research Letters 2005 paper, but OK), you went straight to:
In fact, out of M&M's 10 claims, only one was sortof discredited...
Your link proving that "fact" was to a webpage set up by McIntyre and McKitrick themselves.
... and?
I thought we were talking about science and how we know scientific debate is occurring or not. You apparently still don't understand that scientists self-publishing doesn't count
I was publishing it as a useful summary. Since when is that disallowed? The main point was the actual peer-reviewed paper I linked to, which addressed the majority of claims in the summary, in detail. If I had left out the link to the summary, it would not have weakened my position at all. It was just added so you could better understand the issues without troubling yourself to actually look at the peer-reviewed article, and because it traced some of the history of the existing peer-reviewed papers in the discussion. There is nothing remotely improper about my adding that link.
If I had added that link, and there was no mention of a recent paper in it, and I had not added in any other information about recent papers, well, that would be improper. It's a good thing I didn't do that.
Anyway, to avoid further digression, I'll allow that the scientific debate over the "hockey stick" graph has not quite ended yet.
Which was, of course, my point, so it's troubling that you said I "blew it" when in fact I gave you precisely what you asked for in order to back up the point of mine that you claimed was false. My truth is a bit too inconvenient for you, I guess.
Give that just a few years, probably. From what I've read, McIntyre and McKitrick's analysis on that topic is so flawed, and has been dissected so thoroughly, that, real soon now, it's going to turn into an embarrassment for any serious journal that publishes their work.
What you've read is wrong.
Maybe the methods used to draw the "hockey stick" were flawed (though it's not looking that way).
Then you should really read M&M's recent paper.
Getting back to what I actually said in the review of the movie, that has no impact on what I identified as Gore's main point
Funny how you attack me even though none of what you said has had an impact on MY main point, and then you say this. Boggling. (Also, you should really be using the <quote> tag!)
There are minor errors. They don't detract from Gore's main point, on which the scientific debate has ended. And the main point is scary, and almost too big to think about or talk about. The earth is warming, because of us.
Except, of course, as everyone knows, this isn't true (that the scientific debate on this has ended). And to the extent is true, the scientists who claim the debate is, or should be, over, are not worthy of being called scientists, because the unassailable fact is that there has never been causation actually shown. Only correlation. The "hockey stick graph," even if upheld, shows no causation whatsoever. To say the debate has ended because of correlation is, simply, a very stupid thing to do. But that's what you're claiming, and that's what many scientists are claiming. And it's sad.
And then as to the rest, that "big changes are coming" and "our best estimates are that it's going to be really bad," how can you sit there with a straight face and say the debate has ended over such things which are not remotely provable and haven't happened yet? This is gues
I am not pointing out merely that "some people disagree."I know. You are merely pointing out that some people disagree, and that you agree with those people. Whoopee. Please don't pretend that your experts are right just because they agree with you, because it's really embarassing for you.
You may be used to philosophical and religious discussions, where disagreements are not resolvable definitively and argumentation is a matter of superior persuasion. But this is science; your sarcasm has no power here.Neither does your prickness.
But that doesn't change the fact that nothing you presented actually proved McIntyre and McKitrick to be wrong, any more than McIntyre and McKitrick actually proved Mann to be wrong (even though I think the evidence shows Mann was wrong). Or do you mean because it is in peer-reviewed journals, that makes it right? Since when? And how does that square since McIntyre's and McKitrick's original work was in a peer-reviewed science journal, and continues to appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals, later than the citations you made (e.g. this paper, published in Energy and Environment in 2005)?
In fact, out of M&M's 10 claims, only one was sortof discredited, and it was because Mann et al never made their full data available, and when they did (after M&M's first article), it showed even greater problems than originally realized, and further show the previously undisclosed methodology that led to the M&M error was also flawed in other ways (including whether the methodology itself was valid, whether it was properly applied, and whether the selected proxies themselves have any validity).
You just showed by linking to those other URLs that the debate continues. But you already conceded that anyway
No.
The "excellent primer" was debunked a week or two ago.
Actually, no, it was not. Perhaps some of its claims were debunked, I don't know; but the central claim I cited in it -- that the main data backing up the global warming theory was based on fudged data -- certainly has not been debunked. The "debunker" didn't even attempt to do so.
I am not fully on board with Monckton, and I realized he got some things wrong. But so did Mann in his UN graph, when he fudged the numbers to get their hockey stick graph. They cherry picked their methodology and specifically left out "censored data" (the UN's phrase).
Quick summary: the Mann model was based on bristlecone pines, which the UN had previously stated should NOT be used because they are unreliable, given the 20th century's reliance on CO2-based fertilizers that accelerated growth. And not only was the bristlecone pine dataset used, it was emphasize 390 times more than the other datasets. Other researchers (actual scientists!) swapped out the other non-bristlecone pine datasets with random noise, and the results STILL showed the "hockey stick" graph. Removing the bristlecone pine data (or properly deemphasizing it so it is treated equal to the rest), and the medieval warming period reappears. Funny that.
Again, I am not claiming Monckton is right, and that global warming does not exist. I've repeatedly said here (and told you many times) that it may exist, though I am unconvinced, and that I think we should take some reasonable measures to address the potential problems. But that doesn't mean the Goreists are all right, and this is one big example where the data is simply wrong.
Whether there was a medieval warming period, I don't know. But I do know Mann et al fudged the data to make it look like there wasn't.
Hey, got some data for those nice little statements there?
Which? The causation/"coincidence" one, no, I have no authoritative link: it's hard to prove a negative. The claim being made is that man causes global warming, but the data does not show that. It shows only correlation, not causation. This is true. If you disagree, show me one paper that actually shows causation. I'll wait.
As to the fudged data stuff, sure, that's widely known and understood. This is an excellent primer to the issues involved, and touches on many of the other problems with the global warming "consensus." The most startling fudging is the omission of the medieval warming period from the UN "hockey stick" graph (which was done absolutely intentionally). But there are others.
You really do a good job playing the part of an arrogrant prick.
Back at you.
Here's a tip: replying with a "False" to statements doesn't really make much of a case, it just makes you look like more of an ass.
Only if you are already predisposed to think so. Look at what I used that word to respond to: statements about ME. He said I didn't understand the problem, and that I prejudged the conclusion. He was an ass to make such unwarranted statements, and I have no need to defend myself from such accusations. If you were actually interested in the cases being made, you would have responded to his ad hominem attacks, instead of my responses to them.
Think on.
There is a scientific consensus that global warming is real and anthropogenic.
Consensus != absence of debate. Unless by "consensus" you mean "almost all scientists agree" in which case there is no consensus.
Gore made a movie and no one filed a suit for scientific dishonesty.
So? Why would they? People usually don't filaw lawsuits over such things. Despite the nonsensical recent court ruling declaring Intelligent Design to be unscientific, courtrooms are actually terrible places to determine science.
Scientists made sample searches and found no scientific papers that disputed global warming, and a vast majority considered it anthropogenic.
Which is a fallacy, of course, on more than one level. First, because I did not dispute global warming, just the notion that it is caused by man, and that it will have the effects foretold by Gore and his ilk. Second, because merely "considering" it anthropogenic (which is in fact what most of them do) is far from scientific evidence that it is anthropogenic. Third, because there's a well-documented bias against people who question global warming (in any sense) so the lack of published papers could just as easily be further evidence of bias.
So, who are you, and what are your sources and arguments, to suddenly post here on Slashdot that every scientist is wrong?
Who are you to misrepresent what I said, and what the scientists said? As I just pointed out, I did not question global warming, and even if I had, it is quite clear that not "every scientist" thinks global warming is real anyway. And as YOU pointed out, not "every scientist" actually says they think it is caused by man, despite your contradictory claim here.
Well, says who? What data, in which studies? To what extent? Did you check the data yourself, or do you rely on someone else, and if so who?
If I really cared about your opinion I'd dredge up all the evidence. I am busy and I really don't want to get into an in-depth discussion of it.
Sure, a boulder falling on your head is indeed going to provide shelter from rain. But that's not the main concern you have when you see a boulder falling on you.
Sure, and an umbrella falling on your head will also protect you from rain.
That's your problem, you are in denial.
Nope. That's you, pal. Even the author of the review above aditted he was using hyperbole, and that the debate is, in fact, not over.
Get over it, global warming is real, it is happening
Maybe. I'd give it slightly better than 50-50 chances.
and anthropogenic CO2 is responsible
This is not remotely proven. There is nothing more than correlation actually shown by the data. No causation.
You simply won't admit that you have a problem
Neither will you.
and you have to do something about it.
See, that's where you could not be more wrong. I am, in fact, in favor of common-sense solutions to cut CO2 and other pollutants, because while I recognize the fact that global warming and its causes are far from proven, I also recognize it is possible it's true, and we should do some reasonable things to address the problem. But hey, nice jumping to conclusions!
The big problem here is that Goreists don't recognize that options like Kyoto are, for many reasons, simply unreasonable.
You are approaching a problem you do not understand
False.
with an answer you already made up
False.
That's the approach of religious fundamentalism, science works the other way around.
Not in this case, no, as the data proves. If this were true, the debate would absolutely not be over, since there's no actual causation shown between manmade increases in CO2 and global warming. Even Goreists accept this fact.
That's simply disingenous. With the Big Bang, there's no other reasonable theories that exist right now because no one can even conceive of alternate possibilities to match the data we have. With global-warming-caused-by-man, there are innumerable potential theories, and right at the top of the list is "it's merely coincidental." The data doesn't show anything significant beyond coincidence. And frankly, even that's mostly because the data has been fudged.
Also, your claim that things are going to get worse has *no* serious grounding in available data. Even the fudged data. It's make-believe. For all we know, even if "global warming" was caused by man, it could end up being a net benefit to mankind. Also, according to all this Goreish interpretation of the data, it's quite possible we'd be headed into a global *cooling* period right now without man, in which far *more* lives would be lost.
I just can't agree with the notion that the debate is over, or even that it is over with a very high degree of certainty. And I just can't agree that any data at all shows that "global warming" is a net loss for mankind. The science simply doesn't show either one.
It isn't a foreign policy document. But it WAS written to be exclusively for the people of the United States, and consciously so. They wouldn't have even dreamed of trying to make it apply to anyone else.
I was saying that since it was already covered in the DoI as "self-evident", they didn't need to mention that the BoR applied to all people (to the best they could), not just people of the united states
Except, that's not true. The Bill of Rights DOES only apply to the people of the United States. (Note, I am not saying "citizens" of the United States.) This is absolutely clear, and true. The DoI is not law. It's a statement of principles. And it says that BECAUSE of the principle that all men are created equal and have rights, THEREFORE they should select their own government, and the Constitution defines part of that government. But if you are not a part of that (again, not necessarily a citizen, but in the United States), then none of the Constitution applies to you, unless it explicitly says so.
Things you've said that are wrong:
... ?
None of those things are wrong.
The funny part, is that you follow up that *stunning* display of ignorance about the roles of both the President & the Courts with this gem: And yes, the President should, and will, abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. There's no question about that.
That's also not wrong.
Excuse me? No question? The above statement and your point (C) directly contradict one another.
Well, no, they don't. What's stunning is that you would think they do. The "above statement" is in the context of this particular situation, and "(C)" was related to a hypothetical crazy decision the Court might come up with, which isn't the case with this particular situation: either way the Court goes, it would not be, in the words I used, "blatantly and unquestionably unconstitutional."
Just to be clear, I was referring to "unitary executive" as described by John Yoo, not the literal interpretation of the words "unitary" and "executive".
False. You were referring to it as it is used by the President, which is the same way it is used by Justice Alito, who said the theory means that the President has "not just some executive power, but the executive power -- the whole thing."
you begin by stating the literal meaning
True.
then supporting the John Yoo version
False.
Perhaps you think what I said about the President having the authority to interpret the Constitution on his own, until the Court steps in, as part of the "unitary executive theory." You're wrong. It's a separate notion. And it's unquestionably true anyway.
Either way, you seriously need a remedial class in civics.
Straw man, and ad hominem. Two for one!
Perhaps you've absorbed too many talking points to recall exactly how the balance between the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches work.
Nope. I understand it quite well; you're the one in error.
Seriously, this Republican controlled Congress may have given up on their job and refused to do anything about a Republican President usurping their powers
Congress has no power to enforce its interpretation of the Constitution on the President.
Show me where in the Constitution you think the Congress has this power. Congress can haul the President to the Supreme Court; Congress can impeach the President if he doesn't abide by the will of the Court; Congress can participate in the changing of the Constitution. Congress cannot interpret the Constitution for the President. Such a notion is complete nonsense.
You said the things I said were wrong, but you haven't actually backed any of it up. I wonder why that is
you need a good jr high school civics lesson
Uh huh huh you said "junior."
the three branches are designed to be interlocking and limited
And nothing I said contradicts that.
the executive cannot and does not override the others as some sort of king
Correct. He does, however, override them as some sort of President.
The President has all the power of the Executive. It is his job to execute the laws in the context of his intepretation of the Constitution. If Congress disagrees with his interpretation as executed, they can sue him, and then the Court decides.
Nowhere does the Constitution say the Congress gets to enforce its interpretation of the Constitution on the President, and on the contrary, it says the Supreme Court alone has the jursidiction to resolve disputes under the Constitution.
But hey, you get points for trying. At least you raised your hand!
That's the excuse for everything. You name it, and some pro-security / anti-terrorism phrase will be tossed out, regardless of how irrelevant it factually is. Must be nice to have a bugaboo for all occasions.
Any time you have a legal appeal, you have to weigh the potential damage done by enforcing the previous ruling, or not. Clearly, there is significant potential for damage if you do not stay the decision (which is part of the reason why even the initial judge, who excoriated the Bush administration over this program, didn't enforce her own decision). It's not about national security, it's about the normal legal process of balancing potential harms during a pending appeal.
Let us please remember that, for all its florid prose, the Declaration of Independence was primarily a propaganda tool to drum up support against an unpopular king an ocean away.
In part. But so what? You think they didn't mean what they wrote?
Abraham Lincoln argued very persuasively TJ did mean it. Of course, not persuasively enough to beat Stephen Douglas, but still.
Perhaps the founding fathers didn't feel the need to reiterate that the Bill of Rights was a guideline for them to interact with the world as well as their own citizens because they already held it was a self evident truth that all men are created equal.
That makes no sense. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people of the United States from the government of the United States.
The Constitution says nothing about a "unitary executive"
False. It's right there at the beginning of Article II. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That simply means all the power of the Executive is vested in the President. Which is all "unitary executive" means.
You forgot to mention the part about how the President "shall take care that the laws [passed by the Congress and the Senate] be faithfully executed"
That is only for laws that are constitutional.
Are you claiming that his oath is to the Constitution means he gets to disregard the Laws of the country
If they are unconstitutional, yes. Absolutely. Hell, it's his obligation to do so, if he feels it is necessary.
& the Supreme Court's interpretation of those laws
Only if the Court's interpretation is blatantly and unquestionably unconstitutional. For example, if the Court said the President could serve only one term in office. Then hell yes, he should ignore that.
But the Court has not weighed in on this matter. That's the problem. And yes, the President should, and will, abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. There's no question about that.
But in our system, until the Court does weigh in on the matter (which can only happen through this process we are seeing now), it is the responsibility of the President to interpret the Constitution for himself. It is a violation of the separation of powers for the Congress to try to force its interpretation of the Constitution on the President, through any means other than appealing to the Court (including impeachment: you do not resolve an interpretation dispute through any means other than the Court).
cause, in other situations they call that a Dictatorship.
And what do they call logical fallacies in other situations?
The bigger question is: does the President have the power to unilaterally declare someone an enemy with no judicial oversight/recourse?
Yes, absolutely. Just not without Congressional oversight/recourse. The Supreme Court has extremely limited rights to step in; however, one of their more important roles is settling disputes between the Congress and the President, which is what this is.
My main fear with this case is that the people who brought it have questionable standing to bring it in the first place, and the Supremes might toss the case out without really deciding it.
OK boys and girls, all together now: "Hail King George". If you didn't join the chant, you are obviously an enemy.
Wank wank wank.
Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications.
I tend to agree, but there's a ton of precedent suggesting otherwise, including the recent FISA Court of Review opinion that says Congress *cannot* prevent the President from such activity.
The only visible reason to skip getting a warrant (which will be granted, literally, over 99.99% of the time) is to get away with things that you don't want a judge knowing about.
Perhaps, but that only points out the fact that there's a lot we don't know about this program, that isn't "visible."
Anyway, the main point I have to make is that only the Supreme Court can resolve this, so why is everyone so uptight about it continuing in the meantime, when that's how this has to proceed? There's no other way.
The problem is that anyone who says this is blatantly/irrefutably/clearly/etc. unconstitutional is, in fact, either ignorant or a liar.
There's a ton of case law and precedent that justifies this program.
The simple fact of the matter is that because of the history of this issue -- many decades of similar behavior, the recent FISA court of review ruling, other court cases, etc. all finding in favor of this and similar programs -- there's only one court that can solve this dilemma, and it's unreasonable to accept the judgment of a lower court on the matter.
I tend to think the program is not unconstitutional (as most lawyers do, including most Democrats in the Senate), but that the President doesn't have the authority to do it against the will of the Congress. But there's tons of precedent saying otherwise. Only the Supremes can decide it, and no one else should step in, in the meantime, to stop it.
Nice of you to put words in my mouth. How about we do a little thought exercise: If a politican who didn't support anti-pedophile legislation or claim to represent "traditional values" did the exact same thing as what Foley did, which one is worse?
They didn't do the exact same thing in real life, first of all. Studds was worse in that he actually had sex (and so far there's no indication Foley did); Foley was worse in that some of the boys he at least flirted with were younger, and there were (as best we know) more of them.
Second: both are hypocrites. What, you think the other guy has ever said in public, "I think pedophilia is OK"? Has ever stood up in support of pedophilia?
And even if he did -- and this is my main point -- who the hell CARES? How does being a hypocrite even MATTER after you've done something that bad? It's like the old Spinal Tap joke about the album cover, "how much more black can it be? and the answer is none more black." You're already "black" once you're a pedophile. Saying you're a hypocrite or a jaywalker or a glutton or a smoker or a fan of Britney Spears at that point just doesn't make you worse than you already are. It pales in comparison so much that it is irrelevant.
If William Jefferson had sponsored anti-bribery bills, then I'd call him a hypocrite too. And if there was a controversy about his party's leadership covering up that bribery, I similarly expect the media to at least label him correctly as a democrat. And if the democrats had run on an anti-bribery platform to the same extent that republicans have run on under "traditional values," then I would say that they were opening themselves up to the label of hypocrites as well.
... who the hell CARES if you're also a hypocrite? How does that make a difference at all?
Once you're caught bonking pages or being bribed for tens of thousands of dollars
That's like saying Hitler opened himself up to criticism because he jaywalked. WHO CARES? Trees, meet forest.
As to the "controversy": it's invented. It doesn't exist. Not until SOME evidence supporting the allegation is presented; so far, there's none. Until then, it's a lie for political gain, just like most of the other Democratic allegations: of lying, of coverups, and the rest of the whole "culture of corruption" nonsense. Calling it a "controversy" implies there's two competing sides to the story, and right now, there's not: there is no evidence of a coverup.
The Democrats are the ones lying: either they have other evidence (which raises the question of how and when they got the evidence), or they are saying there's a coverup despite having no evidence to support the allegation.
You are, literally, saying that it is justified for the media to talk about Foley as a Republican based solely on the fact that the Democrats are lying about a coverup. By that standard, the GOP should have just made up a lie about the Democrats covering up Jefferson, in order to get the media to talk about Jefferson being a Democrat.
Going by what you just said, isn't it "irresponsible" for you to even be suggesting such things without proof?
... I didn't suggest it. I was noting what someone else suggested. And I said "if," unlike you, who asserted it as fact. And I wasn't looking to assign blame, but to merely provide a contrast in assigning blame (speculation about what the GOP knew, vs. speculation about what the Dems knew).
... no.
Um
So