Unless of course, they move the cities. It's ridiculous to ignore that everything in human society is in motion. Just have some of those moves occasionally to higher ground.
For example, Constitution specifies that one of its purposes is to "promote the general Welfare"
Preamble is non-binding, sorry.
and it is mostly the rich who desperately want all the data about Anthropogenic Global Warming to be ignored, so they can keep getting richer, while ocean levels rise and drown the home of millions of ordinary citizens.
I'd rather see evidence than data. Evidence would distinguish, say between AGW being serious enough that we need to restructure our energy infraustructure worldwide and a bunch of powerful government officials steering public debate, while data won't. For example, the IPCC won't consider costs and benefits of other strategies for dealing with AGW even though their advocated strategy already requires radical immediate changes in our societies and energy infrastructure in order to attempt.
Selling a particular, high cost mitigation approach hard while ignoring other reasonable approaches such as adaptation (and combinations of mitigation and adaptation) is evidence of such propaganda.
Keystone was shut down because it was primarily a way for Canada to ship oil to China. It's of very, very limited use to the United States while presenting significant risks (oil pipelines break all the time because it's cheaper to let 'em break than to maintain them since the tax payer cleans up the spills).
Even if that were true, it's a great use of a pipeline. Geez, WTF is wrong that people think the US shouldn't assist trade between Canada and China for advantage when it can?
He won't gas jews, but I am worried about my daughter's access to reproductive services. She's got some fairly serious congenital health issues that might someday require an abortion of a non-viable fetus to save her life. This is a surprisingly common occurrence that Mike Pence believes his God forbid's. If you think I'm speaking hyperbole then you don't know the horror of child birth left in God's hands. Educate yourself.
After reading your complaint, it's time to recall that there are people with legitimate complaints about Trump and Pence. Pence can't go back in time and reverse Roe versus Wade. Surely, you'll protect your daughter's reproductive rights from Pence since it's such a big deal to you, right?
I read recently that trees and woody plants evolved a long long time before bacteria evolved that could digest the wood.
The obvious rebuttal is that it's just not that hard to digest wood, it's just slow. My view is that even modern bacteria wouldn't have been able to keep up with the amount of biomatter being deposited. What has changed is that for the most part, modern plants don't deposit enough biomatter to cause this issue.
He's already planning to bring coal burning back, push the Keystone Pipeline through, picked Ebell, and it's been less than a week.
Amazing how little it takes to scare you. Keystone XL pipeline should have been approved a decade ago and coal burning hasn't been shown to be a big deal, let us note once again! And appointing someone not particularly environmentally friendly who still has to survive passage through the Senate. Oh dear, he'll be gassing six million Jews next.
Maybe you should learn how to manage your fear rather than justifying bullying behavior on the basis of unreasonable fear.
Temperature leaves various records. The mix of plants from a certain age places the year-average temperature accurately enough. Plants are picky, if you look at 100 species together. Erosion by ice only happens where it is cold enough for ice, and so on.
Well, when that is actually done, then get back to us. And also, when is the "pickiness" actually going to be demonstrated? For example, anywhere north of 45 degrees latitude probably hasn't yet settled down from the last glacial period.
Anti-Hillary posts [...] caught in the web of lies and hate
Nothing about Clinton's 40 year record of corruption, the blatant nepotism that jumped started her political career, and the ongoing felonies she committed by dodging FOIA requests and public records law? It's all "lies and hate".
Trump had a pretty bad record himself, an epic poorly run campaign, a rich guy which voters are traditionally hugely hostile towards, and he ran his mouth and posted all sorts of crap to Twitter. A normal candidate without the huge negatives of Clinton would have walked all over Trump. The rationalizations are already ridiculous and over-the-top.
But let's blame Facebook because that will help your people nominate better candidates in the future.
You don't have evidence that either "boundary" is relevant. Hence, this is a false dilemma argument combined with the usual argument from authority fallacy (you mischaracterize the scientific debate BTW). How come people can't argument for climate change mitigation right now without using fallacy a lot? It's almost like there isn't a scientific foundation for their beliefs. Odd that.
What's up with the idiotic term "post-factual"? That implies, incorrectly, that there was a "factual" era some point in the past. And funny how global warming mitigation advocates suddenly are concerned about post-factual when they've been living it for decades now.
For example, you give a good example in your attempted correction of an AC's assertion:
[AC]The major flaw with that comic, and the other people using the data behind it, is that we don't have any data, at all, for the rate of temperature change more than a thousand years ago. In fact, we don't even have good data on a decade to decade basis more than 20,000 years ago. Of course the graph is going to be smoothed when you have data binned in 1000 year increments.
You attempt to correct that by providing a link to a graph with the millennial scale resolution and then noting
The ice core samples have a typical resolution of hundred of years, sometimes a bit higher, combining with sediment analysis can narrow it down further. The data is plenty precise enough to reconstruct the thermal record.
So right there, you confirm his complaint about not having decadal scale measurements. And "resolution of hundreds of years" is not significantly different than a resolution of 1,000 years, particularly when the original author was complaining about not having a resolution of 10 years. And this glosses over the fact that the temperature estimate is only for that point in space.
In other words, facts that aren't actually relevant and used to confirm your anti-scientific bias:
But let's drop the pretence that this about the science.
You can only test climate models forwards by running the clock. What has been done on that account shows a consistent exaggeration of global warming to date.
and NASAs models demonstrate a 3% margin of error
Even the ones that differ from each other by more than 3%?
Or is that 10 C? Funny how nobody was around to measure the temperature, yet we have people who are absolutely confident in what the temperature was back then.
And what nature would that give away? The only people who would have been unclear on the sort of attack would be the public.
I believe the main suspect was already caught by then.
And the other several score attackers involved don't matter?
Guessing out of your arse about internal motivations of others is rude and stupid, and solves nothing. Don't be a neckbeard.
Look, I don't give a shit about your feelings. But think about it.
There was nothing lost tactically in admitting that the terrorist attack was what it was. The attackers would have gained no information from a statement of the obvious. Who lost out was the public, once again spoon fed a lie, right before an election.
If these politicians were willing to lie about such a simple thing for such low stakes, then they're willing to lie about things that have a much larger stake, like promiscuous data collection on everyone.
yes, in that first few days during the fog of war and information deficit, Obama et alia should have just come right out and told everybody, including the bad guys, just exactly what they knew and what they would do next.
How about you think about this? As you noted, the US gets attacked by terrorists quite often. And they somehow frequently manage to attribute these attacks to terrorism without spilling the game plan. It's not that hard.
It's not terrorists getting fooled by this, it's the US public. But maybe we don't have enough out of control government plots, right?
So does every kook, blowhard, and troll from here to/b/. They're all just "stating reality".
I don't know, I seem to recall that on June 23 someone decided to pack their shit and go. Yet we're now on November 7 and not only are still there
A little more than four months and the UK hasn't burned Brussels to the ground? What's taking them so long?
This is what indicates to me that you're stating bullshit instead of reality. Since when have countries taken only four months to make such huge changes? They don't stop on a dime you know.
What I've seen so far is a complete change in government to one reflecting the result of the vote and an announced deadline for invoking Article 50 (March 2017). That's pretty significant progress right there for the time frame.
It's mostly moot anyhow, for what was stated at the time was based on complex and changing intelligence, and fear of tipping the suspects with too much public info.
What public info? And once the elections were over, they had no trouble telling the truth any more.
While it's possible some of the statement decisions were politically influenced, without true Mind Reader tech, nobody will really know such that it's a waste of time and rude to point fingers based on mere guesses.
I'd rather be rude than stupid. Rude hurts the feelings of people I don't give a shit about. Stupid hurts me.
When I read the fuller statement, my interpretation is that she was saying that in the immediate aftermath, getting shit done was more important than categorizing events as terrorist versus non-terrorist: a vocabulary exercise.
Given that she and various other officials (particularly, the US Ambassador to the UN, her underling) went through the effort of characterizing the attacks in Benghazi as a protest to a YouTube video, you should be asking what was more important? What shit was getting done? Answer: getting Obama reelected.
Do you think it would fly in the US if a member state decided that the constitution doesn't apply to them? Or threatened to leave the Union if you didn't grant them an exception on the first amendment, or ultimately if you didn't let them rule the whole union? Because that's ultimately the issue the English have with the EU: they aren't the ones ruling it unlike the UK.
There's a good chance that by the time such a thing happens, rule of law wouldn't matter any more. So yes, it just might fly.
Personally, I'm glad that the UK finally took a decision. For decades they've literally been EU's cat, always on the wrong side of the door. They've been threatening to leave for ages, in order to get exceptions allowing them to take the full benefits without taking the full responsibilities or following the same rules as the rest of Europe. They can go wallow in their pipe dream of a British Empire restored, while the EU can continue on its own path without the added weight of the crazy ex-girlfriend that breaks up with you, publicly insults you but still wants to benefit from being in your house and raiding your fridge without paying her share of the rent.
So have you prepared your derogatory remarks for the next country that leaves? Maybe you're right. Maybe it's just the crazy girlfriend thing.
The EU has been clear from the day after the BREXIT vote: even tho it pains us to lose a long time friend and ally, the UK has to respect the will of its population and the sooner the better. The EU isn't the one stalling here, the UK is. The issue is that the UK government knows it's going to be a shitstorm if they trigger Article 50. They're fucked if they do and they're fucked if they don't, the only option that makes sense for them is to stall as long as possible so it becomes "someone else's problem". Bonus points if they can stall it until after the next election, so they can have a clear idea of what the population really wants
While you probably are going to be right, stalling requires someone to first stall. There hasn't been time to do that.
I hope that BREXIT will end up being a net positive for the EU by forcing them to have a real serious discussion on where they want to go post-BREXIT. It's a shame it will have to make life so painful for a lot of my friends.
Too bad it doesn't seem to be triggering a similar discussion in the EU. Yet.
US intelligence has enumerate exactly how it was done, by whom, where and when.
So did Germany when a radio station on the border of Poland was attacked in 1939. It turned out to be staged by the Germans themselves, but the lie was good enough to justify the invasion of Poland.
In West Germany, in 1986, an accident involved a jammed pebble that was damaged by the reactor operators when they were attempting to dislodge it from a feeder tube.
On May 4, 1986, just 6 months after it was connected to the power grid, a fuel pebble became lodged in a fuel feed pipe to the reactor core. Consequently, some radioactive dust was released to the environment.
Nothing to do with criticality. We need to keep in mind here that criticality is a matter of sufficient density of nuclear fuel and neutrons of the appropriate energy. Fuel pebbles are designed to be insufficiently dense to allow this to happen. Damaging one doesn't change this in the least.
The people who actually want the Earth to become like the city of Coruscant, or like in Soylent Green, only use the relatively stable numbers of the indigenous people of the West as an excuse to import immigrants.
You do realize that third generation immigrants have dropped to that developed world low fertility? Immigration from the developing world helps reduce overall population growth.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless of course, they move the cities. It's ridiculous to ignore that everything in human society is in motion. Just have some of those moves occasionally to higher ground.
For example, Constitution specifies that one of its purposes is to "promote the general Welfare"
Preamble is non-binding, sorry.
and it is mostly the rich who desperately want all the data about Anthropogenic Global Warming to be ignored, so they can keep getting richer, while ocean levels rise and drown the home of millions of ordinary citizens.
I'd rather see evidence than data. Evidence would distinguish, say between AGW being serious enough that we need to restructure our energy infraustructure worldwide and a bunch of powerful government officials steering public debate, while data won't. For example, the IPCC won't consider costs and benefits of other strategies for dealing with AGW even though their advocated strategy already requires radical immediate changes in our societies and energy infrastructure in order to attempt.
Selling a particular, high cost mitigation approach hard while ignoring other reasonable approaches such as adaptation (and combinations of mitigation and adaptation) is evidence of such propaganda.
Keystone was shut down because it was primarily a way for Canada to ship oil to China. It's of very, very limited use to the United States while presenting significant risks (oil pipelines break all the time because it's cheaper to let 'em break than to maintain them since the tax payer cleans up the spills).
Even if that were true, it's a great use of a pipeline. Geez, WTF is wrong that people think the US shouldn't assist trade between Canada and China for advantage when it can?
He won't gas jews, but I am worried about my daughter's access to reproductive services. She's got some fairly serious congenital health issues that might someday require an abortion of a non-viable fetus to save her life. This is a surprisingly common occurrence that Mike Pence believes his God forbid's. If you think I'm speaking hyperbole then you don't know the horror of child birth left in God's hands. Educate yourself.
After reading your complaint, it's time to recall that there are people with legitimate complaints about Trump and Pence. Pence can't go back in time and reverse Roe versus Wade. Surely, you'll protect your daughter's reproductive rights from Pence since it's such a big deal to you, right?
I read recently that trees and woody plants evolved a long long time before bacteria evolved that could digest the wood.
The obvious rebuttal is that it's just not that hard to digest wood, it's just slow. My view is that even modern bacteria wouldn't have been able to keep up with the amount of biomatter being deposited. What has changed is that for the most part, modern plants don't deposit enough biomatter to cause this issue.
He's already planning to bring coal burning back, push the Keystone Pipeline through, picked Ebell, and it's been less than a week.
Amazing how little it takes to scare you. Keystone XL pipeline should have been approved a decade ago and coal burning hasn't been shown to be a big deal, let us note once again! And appointing someone not particularly environmentally friendly who still has to survive passage through the Senate. Oh dear, he'll be gassing six million Jews next.
Maybe you should learn how to manage your fear rather than justifying bullying behavior on the basis of unreasonable fear.
Temperature leaves various records. The mix of plants from a certain age places the year-average temperature accurately enough. Plants are picky, if you look at 100 species together. Erosion by ice only happens where it is cold enough for ice, and so on.
Well, when that is actually done, then get back to us. And also, when is the "pickiness" actually going to be demonstrated? For example, anywhere north of 45 degrees latitude probably hasn't yet settled down from the last glacial period.
Anti-Hillary posts [...] caught in the web of lies and hate
Nothing about Clinton's 40 year record of corruption, the blatant nepotism that jumped started her political career, and the ongoing felonies she committed by dodging FOIA requests and public records law? It's all "lies and hate".
Trump had a pretty bad record himself, an epic poorly run campaign, a rich guy which voters are traditionally hugely hostile towards, and he ran his mouth and posted all sorts of crap to Twitter. A normal candidate without the huge negatives of Clinton would have walked all over Trump. The rationalizations are already ridiculous and over-the-top.
But let's blame Facebook because that will help your people nominate better candidates in the future.
Again, where's the evidence AC? Who was measuring temperature back then to verify our assumptions about paleoclimate temperature proxies?
You don't have evidence that either "boundary" is relevant. Hence, this is a false dilemma argument combined with the usual argument from authority fallacy (you mischaracterize the scientific debate BTW). How come people can't argument for climate change mitigation right now without using fallacy a lot? It's almost like there isn't a scientific foundation for their beliefs. Odd that.
For example, you give a good example in your attempted correction of an AC's assertion:
[AC]The major flaw with that comic, and the other people using the data behind it, is that we don't have any data, at all, for the rate of temperature change more than a thousand years ago. In fact, we don't even have good data on a decade to decade basis more than 20,000 years ago. Of course the graph is going to be smoothed when you have data binned in 1000 year increments.
You attempt to correct that by providing a link to a graph with the millennial scale resolution and then noting
The ice core samples have a typical resolution of hundred of years, sometimes a bit higher, combining with sediment analysis can narrow it down further. The data is plenty precise enough to reconstruct the thermal record.
So right there, you confirm his complaint about not having decadal scale measurements. And "resolution of hundreds of years" is not significantly different than a resolution of 1,000 years, particularly when the original author was complaining about not having a resolution of 10 years. And this glosses over the fact that the temperature estimate is only for that point in space.
In other words, facts that aren't actually relevant and used to confirm your anti-scientific bias:
But let's drop the pretence that this about the science.
and NASAs models demonstrate a 3% margin of error
Even the ones that differ from each other by more than 3%?
the planet warmed by about 3 degrees
Or is that 10 C? Funny how nobody was around to measure the temperature, yet we have people who are absolutely confident in what the temperature was back then.
To be fair, there is no worse thing than seeing thousands of immigrants fleeing a country and leaving it in even more chaos due to their escape.
I can think of plenty worse than that.
If all of this resolve and organization and willpower was focused on fighting ISIS/ISIL
Imagine all that manpower staying and fighting for ISIS. The good guys don't always win.
About the nature of possible suspects.
And what nature would that give away? The only people who would have been unclear on the sort of attack would be the public.
I believe the main suspect was already caught by then.
And the other several score attackers involved don't matter?
Guessing out of your arse about internal motivations of others is rude and stupid, and solves nothing. Don't be a neckbeard.
Look, I don't give a shit about your feelings. But think about it.
There was nothing lost tactically in admitting that the terrorist attack was what it was. The attackers would have gained no information from a statement of the obvious. Who lost out was the public, once again spoon fed a lie, right before an election.
If these politicians were willing to lie about such a simple thing for such low stakes, then they're willing to lie about things that have a much larger stake, like promiscuous data collection on everyone.
It's not destroyer-level recoil.
yes, in that first few days during the fog of war and information deficit, Obama et alia should have just come right out and told everybody, including the bad guys, just exactly what they knew and what they would do next.
How about you think about this? As you noted, the US gets attacked by terrorists quite often. And they somehow frequently manage to attribute these attacks to terrorism without spilling the game plan. It's not that hard.
It's not terrorists getting fooled by this, it's the US public. But maybe we don't have enough out of control government plots, right?
I'm just stating reality
So does every kook, blowhard, and troll from here to /b/. They're all just "stating reality".
I don't know, I seem to recall that on June 23 someone decided to pack their shit and go. Yet we're now on November 7 and not only are still there
A little more than four months and the UK hasn't burned Brussels to the ground? What's taking them so long?
This is what indicates to me that you're stating bullshit instead of reality. Since when have countries taken only four months to make such huge changes? They don't stop on a dime you know.
What I've seen so far is a complete change in government to one reflecting the result of the vote and an announced deadline for invoking Article 50 (March 2017). That's pretty significant progress right there for the time frame.
It's mostly moot anyhow, for what was stated at the time was based on complex and changing intelligence, and fear of tipping the suspects with too much public info.
What public info? And once the elections were over, they had no trouble telling the truth any more.
While it's possible some of the statement decisions were politically influenced, without true Mind Reader tech, nobody will really know such that it's a waste of time and rude to point fingers based on mere guesses.
I'd rather be rude than stupid. Rude hurts the feelings of people I don't give a shit about. Stupid hurts me.
When I read the fuller statement, my interpretation is that she was saying that in the immediate aftermath, getting shit done was more important than categorizing events as terrorist versus non-terrorist: a vocabulary exercise.
Given that she and various other officials (particularly, the US Ambassador to the UN, her underling) went through the effort of characterizing the attacks in Benghazi as a protest to a YouTube video, you should be asking what was more important? What shit was getting done? Answer: getting Obama reelected.
Do you think it would fly in the US if a member state decided that the constitution doesn't apply to them? Or threatened to leave the Union if you didn't grant them an exception on the first amendment, or ultimately if you didn't let them rule the whole union? Because that's ultimately the issue the English have with the EU: they aren't the ones ruling it unlike the UK.
There's a good chance that by the time such a thing happens, rule of law wouldn't matter any more. So yes, it just might fly.
Personally, I'm glad that the UK finally took a decision. For decades they've literally been EU's cat, always on the wrong side of the door. They've been threatening to leave for ages, in order to get exceptions allowing them to take the full benefits without taking the full responsibilities or following the same rules as the rest of Europe. They can go wallow in their pipe dream of a British Empire restored, while the EU can continue on its own path without the added weight of the crazy ex-girlfriend that breaks up with you, publicly insults you but still wants to benefit from being in your house and raiding your fridge without paying her share of the rent.
So have you prepared your derogatory remarks for the next country that leaves? Maybe you're right. Maybe it's just the crazy girlfriend thing.
The EU has been clear from the day after the BREXIT vote: even tho it pains us to lose a long time friend and ally, the UK has to respect the will of its population and the sooner the better. The EU isn't the one stalling here, the UK is. The issue is that the UK government knows it's going to be a shitstorm if they trigger Article 50. They're fucked if they do and they're fucked if they don't, the only option that makes sense for them is to stall as long as possible so it becomes "someone else's problem". Bonus points if they can stall it until after the next election, so they can have a clear idea of what the population really wants
While you probably are going to be right, stalling requires someone to first stall. There hasn't been time to do that.
I hope that BREXIT will end up being a net positive for the EU by forcing them to have a real serious discussion on where they want to go post-BREXIT. It's a shame it will have to make life so painful for a lot of my friends.
Too bad it doesn't seem to be triggering a similar discussion in the EU. Yet.
US intelligence has enumerate exactly how it was done, by whom, where and when.
So did Germany when a radio station on the border of Poland was attacked in 1939. It turned out to be staged by the Germans themselves, but the lie was good enough to justify the invasion of Poland.
Next, let's assume that the economy improves, so that treasury bills are paying 2%.
That happened because the treasury bill dropped roughly 1% in value because they're moving money to some other investment, namely stocks.
That same stock with the same risk would now have to have an ROI of 5% for the investor to buy that stock.
Which is more likely to happen because the economy improved. You will see higher stock prices as a result.
What happens when a lot of the other countries want the same? Maybe less responsibilities truly are in order here?
In West Germany, in 1986, an accident involved a jammed pebble that was damaged by the reactor operators when they were attempting to dislodge it from a feeder tube.
And the result was:
On May 4, 1986, just 6 months after it was connected to the power grid, a fuel pebble became lodged in a fuel feed pipe to the reactor core. Consequently, some radioactive dust was released to the environment.
Nothing to do with criticality. We need to keep in mind here that criticality is a matter of sufficient density of nuclear fuel and neutrons of the appropriate energy. Fuel pebbles are designed to be insufficiently dense to allow this to happen. Damaging one doesn't change this in the least.
The people who actually want the Earth to become like the city of Coruscant, or like in Soylent Green, only use the relatively stable numbers of the indigenous people of the West as an excuse to import immigrants.
You do realize that third generation immigrants have dropped to that developed world low fertility? Immigration from the developing world helps reduce overall population growth.