Right now, that is a presidential directive that can be revoked whenever the president feels like it. Putting this into law will ensure that it will happen under future presidents as well.
Science also shouldn't be a dictatorship, but that's what it has become under progressives: "we say this is the truth, and you either comply or we will throw you in jail".
and this proposal will only make it harder for any regulations to be implemented [...] lawmakers are fighting environmental regulations tooth and nail
So you are saying that you want the EPA to be giving the power to dictate regulations over the objections of our elected representatives? I don't think so. If some regulation is so poorly supported that the EPA can't defend it against challenges and/or is unable to release its data to the public, then Congress should act. And lawmakers always should have the right to override the EPA's decisions.
What you're arguing for is a fascist superstate that overrides the will of the democratically elected representatives of the people, and we won't have that. Sorry.
Sadly that's not a ridiculous assumption, when Republicans get involved with science it's generally not on friendly terms.
Democrats and progressives have been misusing science for more than a century.
As for the bill itself, one issue is what is meant by "replicable". Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce.
Correct. That is why you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on such data.
The basic function of the bill is that it makes it really tough for the EPA to cite research, and if the EPA can't cite research it has a much more difficult time justifying regulations.
That is indeed the basic function of the bill: the EPA should be forced to rely on reproducible public research, instead of the vague hunches and opinions of its staff. That makes the EPA at the same time more compliant with the scientific method, and it also makes it harder for them to create arbitrary regulations in response to political pressures. Both of those are good things. Unless you're a science-denying leftist, of course.
A lot of datasets are owned by corporations that are very protective of their copyrights. Elsevyr
Elsevier:For US government employees, works created within the scope of their employment are considered to be public domain and Elsevier's publishing agreements do not require a transfer or license of rights for such works. In the UK and certain commonwealth countries, a work created by a government employee is copyrightable but the government may own the copyright (Crown copyright). Click here for information about UK government employees publishing open access
I won't even bother to comment on your subsequent bullshit and fear mongering You just don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, it's fine to require the EPA to make its data available freely: it's good for science, it's good for politics, and it's good for the people. Your delusion that in order for the EPA to do good science, it needs to keep it secret is utterly ludicrous.
"Write in textese and we'll autoexpand for you into more than 140 characters."
"We'll only count the gzip-compressed message length against the 140 character limit, not the original message."
"We'll only count the CMIX-compressed message length against the 140 character limit, not the original message."
Twitter is realizing that the 140 character limit is a millstone around their neck and is too short; they'd like to go to at least a few hundred bytes, but they are afraid they're going to destroy their brand and be perceived as just another blogging platform, so they come up with all these "it's 140 characters, but..." tweaks.
Look, this isn't up for debate; this is settled Constitutional law. If you think that the General Welfare clause gives the US government the power to "provide for the general welfare" in general, you're simply a fool.
That clause alone justifies laws. regulations, and taxes aimed to improve the lives of the poor.
No it doesn't. The "general welfare clause" is widely understood to be limiting what precedes it. That is, it doesn't give government an additional power "to promote the general welfare". Instead it means that the enumerated powers in the Constitution may only be exercised for the purpose of promoting the general welfare (as opposed to the welfare of specific groups).
If it applies to the poor at all, the general welfare clause says that government may not redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, since that doesn't promote the general welfare, but helps one group of people at the expense of another, something that the authors of the Constitution clearly did not want.
When the "stuff" that the poor get less of is the very "stuff" that enables everyone to be more productive, participate more fully in our culture and democracy, find and get better jobs, develop more marketable skills, learn new things, then you're not just being callous and cruel, but also self-destructive and anti-freedom.
The poverty line for a couple is $16000. That's supplemented by numerous government benefits, subsidies, and the EITC. People can afford to buy high speed Internet for that.
Throwing procedural hurdles in front of the disadvantaged is even more salt being rubbed into the open wound.
What is "disadvantaging" these people is an endless supply of nonsensical government "benefits" that mostly serve special interests. Applying for all the socially engineered benefits idiots like you favor is a full time job for the poor, and it is demeaning and disrespectful.
If there was a problem, then the right solution would be to increase the EITC, not to create more crap like this.
If we have to go in one direction with CO2 concentration it should be up, not down. Like temperature, which is preferable: warmer or colder?
Changes to carbon emissions are largely irrelevant at this point. Even if we stopped emissions completely, it would take centuries for carbon concentrations to fall significantly. On the other hand, further carbon emissions won't have much of an effect either. We couldn't warm the planet much more if we tried.
These and other aspects of the whole neverending crisis-mongering convinces me that it's a money and power grab.
If your opinion is based on a continued and intentional misunderstanding of a word, then that also makes you stupid. \You holding a misplaced opinion that Sarkeesian is sexist does not in fact make her sexist
Dictionary definition of sexist: relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender: a sexist remark
What sort of colossal moron would focus on percent generation and ignore the top-ten list of production capacity at the head of the page
The sort of moron that actually understands economics and the consequences of moving to renewables for a country. That is, if you want to see how a move to renewables relates to how a country operates, you need to look at the percentage of renewables relative to total generating capacity, not absolute generating capacity.
What the fuck are you on?
I can't tell: are you really as stupid and ignorant as you seem or is there some kind of propaganda school where they educate you? My guess is the former, but you're welcome to correct me.
At what CO2 PPM do plants and vegetation begin shutting down - 200PPM? We are supposedly at 400PPM now.
I was being sarcastic. However, you seem as confused as the climate alarmists: shutting down carbon dioxide emissions would simply return us to pre-industrial CO2 levels eventually, and even that takes centuries. That's one of the reasons why action on climate change is pointless.
The leaders in renewable energy adoption are economic powerhouses like Lesotho, Bhutan, and Paraguay. Heck, before the industrial revolution, pretty much 100% of energy was from renewable sources! Good times! And it was cooler too, like in the Little Ice Age, and people just "loved" all the starvation and wars that brought!
The overarching goal is simple: globally, we must halve carbon dioxide emissions every decade. That's essentially it.
Great! While you're at it, why don't you also legislate other simple overaching goals, like halving the murder rate every decade, doubling economic output every decade, doubling IQs every decade, and halving deaths from cancer every decade? Heck, go all the way and double life expectancy every decade too! You can probably hire some of the central planners of the former USSR to make that happen, they have nearly half a century of experience in how to set goals like that and achieve them.
The rule would ideally be applied "to all sectors and countries at all scales," and would encourage "bold action in the short term."
If by "bold action", you mean government corruption, followed by economic collapse and hunting rats for food, and finally bloody revolutions, that is certainly true.
Gosh, you finally figured out that judging something "offensive, sexist, and bigoted" is a matter of opinion? Good grief, took you long enough! I'm glad that my sarcastic comment led you to that; that was kind of the point. Now apply that newfound insight to FeministFrequency itself: "it's just like her opinion".
Jesus christ dude, they're both freedom of movement issues.
Freedom of movement is a well-defined and widely recognized right that encompasses (UN definition):
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
For your personal amusement, you can extend that list by whatever movement-related criteria you want, but your personal amusement does not create new human rights.
In particular, there is no "(3) Everyone has the right to enter any country they choose."
First you claimed dishonesty, which you failed to prove
Nope, sorry. I never mentioned "dishonesty". I called FeministFrequency "offensive, sexist, and bigoted" and disagreed with both you and Rockoon when you discussed whether she was dishonest or mistaken. Sarkeesian's videos are fact-free drivel, hence they are neither "dishonest" nor "mistaken".
He was arrested for threatening and abusive behaviour and assault.
Correct. Specifically, his non-violent, spoken response to a question about the Bible was considered "threatening and abusive".
but he was actually arrested because he was accused of assault.
Correct. That's because the British increasingly consider some speech to be "assault". That is, blurring the line between free speech that offends someone ("verbal assault") and physical assault is one way in which countries rationalize draconian restrictions on free speech and in which citizens accept such restrictions.
Again, this is just one of many examples of how US and UK differ on the question of hate speech. For you to try to argue that the UK has free speech just like the US is completely out of touch with reality.
Based on a meta-analysis, current PV systems have energy payback times of about 3-4 years. But that's unlikely to be accurate. Subsidized payback periods for PV systems are about 7 years, and unsubsidized payback periods are about 15 years, and both PV and non-PV costs are dominated by energy inputs.
I know nothing about K. S. Kyosuke, but I interpreted that to mean he (she?) had grown up in East Germany or at least the Eastern bloc, but had been able to travel to West Germany.
That wouldn't support his argument. We're talking about a (putative, non-existent) right to enter another country as a non-citizen.
The transgression of the "stinking Communists" was an entirely different one: they violated the (established) right of citizens to leave their country of citizenship.
And speaking as someone whose family actually suffered for decades under "stinking Communists" and who has actually lived as an immigrant much of his life, it is incomprehensible to me how anybody who claims to have been affected by the "stinking Communists" could fail to understand the distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now, that is a presidential directive that can be revoked whenever the president feels like it. Putting this into law will ensure that it will happen under future presidents as well.
Science also shouldn't be a dictatorship, but that's what it has become under progressives: "we say this is the truth, and you either comply or we will throw you in jail".
So you are saying that you want the EPA to be giving the power to dictate regulations over the objections of our elected representatives? I don't think so. If some regulation is so poorly supported that the EPA can't defend it against challenges and/or is unable to release its data to the public, then Congress should act. And lawmakers always should have the right to override the EPA's decisions.
What you're arguing for is a fascist superstate that overrides the will of the democratically elected representatives of the people, and we won't have that. Sorry.
Your posting is proof again that sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from sarcasm.
Democrats and progressives have been misusing science for more than a century.
Correct. That is why you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on such data.
That is indeed the basic function of the bill: the EPA should be forced to rely on reproducible public research, instead of the vague hunches and opinions of its staff. That makes the EPA at the same time more compliant with the scientific method, and it also makes it harder for them to create arbitrary regulations in response to political pressures. Both of those are good things. Unless you're a science-denying leftist, of course.
Elsevier: For US government employees, works created within the scope of their employment are considered to be public domain and Elsevier's publishing agreements do not require a transfer or license of rights for such works.
In the UK and certain commonwealth countries, a work created by a government employee is copyrightable but the government may own the copyright (Crown copyright). Click here for information about UK government employees publishing open access
I won't even bother to comment on your subsequent bullshit and fear mongering You just don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, it's fine to require the EPA to make its data available freely: it's good for science, it's good for politics, and it's good for the people. Your delusion that in order for the EPA to do good science, it needs to keep it secret is utterly ludicrous.
"Write in textese and we'll autoexpand for you into more than 140 characters."
"We'll only count the gzip-compressed message length against the 140 character limit, not the original message."
"We'll only count the CMIX-compressed message length against the 140 character limit, not the original message."
Twitter is realizing that the 140 character limit is a millstone around their neck and is too short; they'd like to go to at least a few hundred bytes, but they are afraid they're going to destroy their brand and be perceived as just another blogging platform, so they come up with all these "it's 140 characters, but..." tweaks.
So? Tax free, that's a lot of money. My own basic living expenses are less than that, including broadband.
Look, this isn't up for debate; this is settled Constitutional law. If you think that the General Welfare clause gives the US government the power to "provide for the general welfare" in general, you're simply a fool.
And that's why your views of social policy are completely out of touch with reality.
Besides, another $150/year in subsidies to "the poor" through a complicated, corrupt government program isn't going to make any difference then.
No it doesn't. The "general welfare clause" is widely understood to be limiting what precedes it. That is, it doesn't give government an additional power "to promote the general welfare". Instead it means that the enumerated powers in the Constitution may only be exercised for the purpose of promoting the general welfare (as opposed to the welfare of specific groups).
If it applies to the poor at all, the general welfare clause says that government may not redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, since that doesn't promote the general welfare, but helps one group of people at the expense of another, something that the authors of the Constitution clearly did not want.
The poverty line for a couple is $16000. That's supplemented by numerous government benefits, subsidies, and the EITC. People can afford to buy high speed Internet for that.
What is "disadvantaging" these people is an endless supply of nonsensical government "benefits" that mostly serve special interests. Applying for all the socially engineered benefits idiots like you favor is a full time job for the poor, and it is demeaning and disrespectful.
If there was a problem, then the right solution would be to increase the EITC, not to create more crap like this.
You're confusing me with an AGW activist.
Changes to carbon emissions are largely irrelevant at this point. Even if we stopped emissions completely, it would take centuries for carbon concentrations to fall significantly. On the other hand, further carbon emissions won't have much of an effect either. We couldn't warm the planet much more if we tried.
Of course it is.
Dictionary definition of sexist: relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender: a sexist remark
The sort of moron that actually understands economics and the consequences of moving to renewables for a country. That is, if you want to see how a move to renewables relates to how a country operates, you need to look at the percentage of renewables relative to total generating capacity, not absolute generating capacity.
I can't tell: are you really as stupid and ignorant as you seem or is there some kind of propaganda school where they educate you? My guess is the former, but you're welcome to correct me.
I was being sarcastic. However, you seem as confused as the climate alarmists: shutting down carbon dioxide emissions would simply return us to pre-industrial CO2 levels eventually, and even that takes centuries. That's one of the reasons why action on climate change is pointless.
Not even close.
The leaders in renewable energy adoption are economic powerhouses like Lesotho, Bhutan, and Paraguay. Heck, before the industrial revolution, pretty much 100% of energy was from renewable sources! Good times! And it was cooler too, like in the Little Ice Age, and people just "loved" all the starvation and wars that brought!
It's the eternal pipe dream of progressives, fascists, and socialists: the intelligentsia commands, and the serfs jump to make it happen.
Great! While you're at it, why don't you also legislate other simple overaching goals, like halving the murder rate every decade, doubling economic output every decade, doubling IQs every decade, and halving deaths from cancer every decade? Heck, go all the way and double life expectancy every decade too! You can probably hire some of the central planners of the former USSR to make that happen, they have nearly half a century of experience in how to set goals like that and achieve them.
If by "bold action", you mean government corruption, followed by economic collapse and hunting rats for food, and finally bloody revolutions, that is certainly true.
Gosh, you finally figured out that judging something "offensive, sexist, and bigoted" is a matter of opinion? Good grief, took you long enough! I'm glad that my sarcastic comment led you to that; that was kind of the point. Now apply that newfound insight to FeministFrequency itself: "it's just like her opinion".
Freedom of movement is a well-defined and widely recognized right that encompasses (UN definition):
For your personal amusement, you can extend that list by whatever movement-related criteria you want, but your personal amusement does not create new human rights.
In particular, there is no "(3) Everyone has the right to enter any country they choose."
Now that I am a naturalized citizen I do. Before naturalization, I did not.
Nope, sorry. I never mentioned "dishonesty". I called FeministFrequency "offensive, sexist, and bigoted" and disagreed with both you and Rockoon when you discussed whether she was dishonest or mistaken. Sarkeesian's videos are fact-free drivel, hence they are neither "dishonest" nor "mistaken".
Correct. Specifically, his non-violent, spoken response to a question about the Bible was considered "threatening and abusive".
Correct. That's because the British increasingly consider some speech to be "assault". That is, blurring the line between free speech that offends someone ("verbal assault") and physical assault is one way in which countries rationalize draconian restrictions on free speech and in which citizens accept such restrictions.
Again, this is just one of many examples of how US and UK differ on the question of hate speech. For you to try to argue that the UK has free speech just like the US is completely out of touch with reality.
Based on a meta-analysis, current PV systems have energy payback times of about 3-4 years. But that's unlikely to be accurate. Subsidized payback periods for PV systems are about 7 years, and unsubsidized payback periods are about 15 years, and both PV and non-PV costs are dominated by energy inputs.
That wouldn't support his argument. We're talking about a (putative, non-existent) right to enter another country as a non-citizen.
The transgression of the "stinking Communists" was an entirely different one: they violated the (established) right of citizens to leave their country of citizenship.
And speaking as someone whose family actually suffered for decades under "stinking Communists" and who has actually lived as an immigrant much of his life, it is incomprehensible to me how anybody who claims to have been affected by the "stinking Communists" could fail to understand the distinction.