So if I murder someone and have not yet been proven guilty then I should be allowed to roam the street freely? The sentiment is nice but I don't think it works well in the real world.
It works better in the real world than punishing people on flimsy excuses.
Well, except their predictions are empirically tested against new observations constantly.
They need a lot more new observations. Currently, it's one year of new data every year.
You may even find that actual, practising climatologists understand the limitations of their own models far better than you do.
Or I night not find so. There is a remarkable and unwarranted public confidence in climate models. Some of that overconfidence may come from the researchers themselves, in which case I do understand the limitations of their models better than they do.
...in some alternate universe where Soviet bureaucrats had an enormous and direct incentive to cut corners, the way capitalists do.
There isn't only one way to cut corners. The near destruction of the Aral Sea didn't happen because someone wanted to make a quick buck.
Or maybe note your American Exceptionalist ass uses 30 times the resources of some poor shlub in a developing country.
So what? Even if that were true, there's plenty of resources to go around even at seven billion people.
Or that the United States produces a quarter of the world's pollution while having 4% of the worlds population
Even if that were true, (and it's not because you are counting mass of CO2 as equivalent to mass of mercury,particulate soot, etc, which is ridiculously dishonest), that's still only a factor of six which isn't that bad.
and that's not including all the coal plants in China producing cheap crap in offshored factories for sale in Wal-Mart.
Which is a smart consideration since that is Chinese pollution not US pollution!
Oh noes! All those jobs lost in the manufacture of asbestos, lead paint, and DDT! Will no one think of the poor beleaguered capitalist cock!
Again, my point is not to completely eliminate regulation but to make it so that it isn't a society-destroying burden. And let's face it, if your false dichotomy were actually true that the US would have to forgo regulation altogether or continue with the current suicidal regime, then the US would be face with increasing pollution at some point. The real variation would be whether they were a vassal of China at the time.
This is not a useful assertion, as you could say that about everything outside of pure mathematics.
That statement is logically incorrect. For if you were correct, then the above statement being outside of pure mathematics would be incorrect by its own assertion.
Plus the previous poster already granted the basic idea by saying:
This doesn't mean Newton's model isn't useful as long as you are aware of the assumptions and their limitations.
They already state why incorrectness matters - when you try to apply the model beyond the regime where it works.
Most people are well aware that there no absolutes in reality (certainly most scientists), so declaring commonly-used models to be "incorrect" or "disproven" does not advance the discussion - rather, it seems to more often be used in attempts to undermine the scientific case against the declarator's beliefs.
That doesn't mean the effort is invalid. To the contrary, it is more often a valid, scientific reason for rejecting the model in question. For example, a universal problem with climate modeling is the lack of empirical testing of these models. That in turn is a valid reason to reject using those models for extraordinary costly endeavors.
If people with private/corporate power didn't act like selfish dicks a lot of the time, maybe we wouldn't need as much government.
And maybe we wouldn't be wiping out species and ecosystems at 100 to 1000x background extinction rate, and maybe we wouldn't be warming the climate and acidifying the oceans.
The USSR is a great example of why that "maybe" is a waste of consideration. A powerful government will take the environmental shortcuts too and it'll waive the regulations for itself.
And it's worth noting here that most developed world spending does nothing to help the environment. But it does help to fund cronies and hide government abuse and lack of enforcement of environmental regulation.
Finally, what's wrong with the environmental regulation of the past 40 years? Well, aside from being a job-killing morass that is. If you want to change environmental regulation, do so in a way that helps businesses rather than just encourages the ongoing shift of power to China and elsewhere.
It's tempting to take the position that until something is proved in court the only fair thing is to do nothing about it. I'm not sure that gets the balance right - you risk harm to innocent parties in either case, so there is no good solution.
It's not just tempting, it's the right thing to do. The problem here is what's the threshold of proof to get on a list of "suspicion" registry? If it's not just as firm as actual conviction of a crime, then it's punishment without due process, perhaps libel as well.
A free society has no place for public accusations or suspicions without evidence that can be gamed by anyone with a grudge, particularly the authorities.
Obviously, this is over the top in this case - sadly police have got more process driven, and common sense has gone out of the window a bit.
There's one word to describe this situation - unaccountability. Established procedures can be used to insure that some common task, such as arresting someone, is done right. But they can also be used to evade responsibility. Zero tolerance policies and similarly heavy-handed responses no matter how slight the issue are an example of procedure gone wrong.
This is just me pointing out a lying bully who is deliberately misleading people.
The obvious rebuttal here is that words have meaning.
Bully: a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker
Blustering means among other things threatening. Since I have yet to be threatening in this thread, a key component of bullying is missing. Similarly, browbeating is coercion to get someone to do something. That's not happening either.
Similarly, "lying" means intentional spreading of a falsehood. You never bothered to say specifically what of what I wrote was a falsehood or why. You apparently do disagree with the observation:
This is an example. We have a bald assertion that the Hugo picks by "the puppies" were chosen on the basis of politics.
Note that no one in this thread has bothered to provide evidence or reason to dispute my observation. It's all empty assertions and noise. One can get very tired of that.
This is no "debate".
True, I won that when you refused to and continue to refuse to back up any statements you made. You've only made my argument stronger emotionally since.
Nobody cares that you think for some bizarre reason that I'm a lying bully. You give out those insults like candy and with about as much thought as breathing. There's no weight or credibility to it. And as I noted earlier, that accusation just strengthens my rhetorical position. Unfair, aggressive attacks do that for the one attacked.
You start off arguing to fail. Stop that. You need to up your game.
Your shotgun "inexperienced" thing is a textbook case of attempting to bully the kiddies and hilariously having utterly no idea that you are discussing things with someone older than yourself.
Except that it's not. You're just saying shit again.
Above I was just correcting what appeared to be deliberate misdirection and misinformation on your part and you got very insulting about it.
In your usual thoroughly incompetent way. If I really were delivering deliberate misdirection and misinformation, I couldn't buy better support than what you've given me. You need to learn how not to bake failure into your arguments. For example, a weak ad hominem attack like you started with, because of assertions you made which you can't even bother to back with the minimum of evidence, is a classic way to come out swinging and losing.
But in turn, I get easy theater and narrative to show to everyone else. Look? See how I'm getting unfairly persecuted by this ignorant guy for being right?
It doesn't matter now, but some day, you'll be in a situation where you need to persuade someone else to keep something bad from happening or lessen its impact. Maybe a friend or loved one is harming themselves, maybe your company is thinking about doing something really stupid, maybe your society is pushing the self-destruct button. Even if persuasion can't prevent or reverse bad choices, it can still result in a better outcome. But you have to have the skills in the first place for it to work. Slashdot is a place you can learn those skills, should you ever choose to pay attention.
Look at historical debates such as "does smoking cause cancer" and current debates on climate change.... many sciences are subject to the influence of politics and agendas, and tragically, there are scientists who allow themselves to be so influenced.
Sure, there are many subjects with significant financial or ideological value, but there's more than that where the only things at stake are the egos of the researchers involved.
Economics is not a science, no matter how many times you and your finance buddies tell yourselves that it is.
But neither are physics, chemistry, etc, sciences because of how many times you and your finance buddies tell yourselves they are. They are all sciences because they are systematic empirical studies of some part of the real world. The difference with economics is that there are far stronger incentives to corrupt observations and models than with most other sciences.
Glancing at Google, "detailed" means "having many details or facts; showing attention to detail." I don't think the report qualifies since it doesn't actually have that many details.
How else did you manage to find something to pick at with the report?
I knew where to look for the problems. And the number one problem with this sort of study is an artificially low discount rate which exaggerates future costs.
What an utterly pathetic shotgun attempt at bullying in the hope you hit someone younger.
Bullying doesn't mean disagreement or even insults. Nor do I care if you are physically older or younger than me. What I care about is your completely inadequate and incompetent efforts at debate.
I have to say, my original accusation looks now to be statement of fact than the witty rejoinder I originally planned it to be. If I really were as dishonest and fraudulent as you seem to think I am, I couldn't pay someone to do a better job for me than you are doing right now. Maybe you ought to think about those unintended consequences?
Usually only as the observer and not as an experienced perpetrator such as yourself
I think no one can disagree that you are inexperienced.
Are you in politics, "public relations", "social media worker", advertising or just an unpaid person fond of manipulation? Either way this current "spin" of pretending rather blatant student politics style bullshit is not happening shows a distinct lack of integrity and only makes my wonder at the motives of an apologist for such bullshit. It's not just about being anti-science this time, so what is it about?
I think it shows poor reasoning skills on your part. Even if your accusations were true, you're pointlessly making an idiot out of yourself since you would have nothing to back it up. You probably should learn to come up with support when you make assertions. Just saying shit marks you as an idiot.
We can use those out of shape reasoning skills here. There isn't a financial or propaganda advantage to spending endless hours on Slashdot, especially without a coherent theme. Sorry, we're just not that important and human labor is rather expensive. In addition, it's an enormous pain to find any posts on Slashdot via the search engines. So there's no point to using Slashdot to poison the well that way either.
Finally, why should it be such a big deal that someone disagrees with you that you have to spin conspiracy theories about it? I got used to it. You should too.
And most people on Slashdot don't launch rockets either. It's quite relevant to the argument that someone should receive special consideration because they do launch rockets.
He'll, of course, be most well known for his celebrated surgery theory on sexifolds, particularly the foundational Sexconker Decomposition Theorem which demonstrates that all sexifolds can be decomposed into basic topological components such as penisifolds, breastifolds, and analfolds. And if the sexifold is not oriented, then it has a peculiar bisexual structure.
And we should allow a major crime to go unpunished because someone might hold a grudge for more than four decades? This is nonsense, especially since you have yet to explain how someone will determine who voted for who.
Actually, no. Conservation of energy means that converting solar radiation in electricity simply changes the form of the energy, not the amount.
Energy can be heating up mass on Earth or it can be radiating to deep space. Solar power causes more energy to be contained on Earth, heating it up rather than the latter. Energy is conserved, but it need not be present on Earth. And I already stated the mechanisms by which this would happen.
1) It's not the holy grail. It's been shown that if our energy consumption continues to grow along its current trajectory, then the temperature at the surface of the earth will reach the boiling point in several hundred years. Now, presumably the growth of our energy consumption will slow down at some point. But what this thought experiment demonstrates is that any power source that generates denovo heat on the earth is part of the problem. Ultimately, the source of our power will have to be the sun.
Solar also generates heat since it is increasing the albedo of a part of Earth and the result electricity produced will generate heat through work or inefficiency.
And physical exponential growth forever is not a serious scenario to consider.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I murder someone and have not yet been proven guilty then I should be allowed to roam the street freely? The sentiment is nice but I don't think it works well in the real world.
It works better in the real world than punishing people on flimsy excuses.
Well, except their predictions are empirically tested against new observations constantly.
They need a lot more new observations. Currently, it's one year of new data every year.
You may even find that actual, practising climatologists understand the limitations of their own models far better than you do.
Or I night not find so. There is a remarkable and unwarranted public confidence in climate models. Some of that overconfidence may come from the researchers themselves, in which case I do understand the limitations of their models better than they do.
...in some alternate universe where Soviet bureaucrats had an enormous and direct incentive to cut corners, the way capitalists do. There isn't only one way to cut corners. The near destruction of the Aral Sea didn't happen because someone wanted to make a quick buck.
Or maybe note your American Exceptionalist ass uses 30 times the resources of some poor shlub in a developing country.
So what? Even if that were true, there's plenty of resources to go around even at seven billion people.
Or that the United States produces a quarter of the world's pollution while having 4% of the worlds population
Even if that were true, (and it's not because you are counting mass of CO2 as equivalent to mass of mercury,particulate soot, etc, which is ridiculously dishonest), that's still only a factor of six which isn't that bad.
and that's not including all the coal plants in China producing cheap crap in offshored factories for sale in Wal-Mart.
Which is a smart consideration since that is Chinese pollution not US pollution!
Oh noes! All those jobs lost in the manufacture of asbestos, lead paint, and DDT! Will no one think of the poor beleaguered capitalist cock!
Again, my point is not to completely eliminate regulation but to make it so that it isn't a society-destroying burden. And let's face it, if your false dichotomy were actually true that the US would have to forgo regulation altogether or continue with the current suicidal regime, then the US would be face with increasing pollution at some point. The real variation would be whether they were a vassal of China at the time.
This is not a useful assertion, as you could say that about everything outside of pure mathematics.
That statement is logically incorrect. For if you were correct, then the above statement being outside of pure mathematics would be incorrect by its own assertion.
Plus the previous poster already granted the basic idea by saying:
This doesn't mean Newton's model isn't useful as long as you are aware of the assumptions and their limitations.
They already state why incorrectness matters - when you try to apply the model beyond the regime where it works.
Most people are well aware that there no absolutes in reality (certainly most scientists), so declaring commonly-used models to be "incorrect" or "disproven" does not advance the discussion - rather, it seems to more often be used in attempts to undermine the scientific case against the declarator's beliefs.
That doesn't mean the effort is invalid. To the contrary, it is more often a valid, scientific reason for rejecting the model in question. For example, a universal problem with climate modeling is the lack of empirical testing of these models. That in turn is a valid reason to reject using those models for extraordinary costly endeavors.
Scientific results exists even if you personally cannot confirm them. The point is that someone can confirm them, and does.
And the obvious rebuttal is a whole lot of people can confirm their invisible sky gods.
Can you personally confirm that electrons exist?
[...] Can you personally confirm that the Pope exists?
The answer is that yes, he can do that.
If people with private/corporate power didn't act like selfish dicks a lot of the time, maybe we wouldn't need as much government. And maybe we wouldn't be wiping out species and ecosystems at 100 to 1000x background extinction rate, and maybe we wouldn't be warming the climate and acidifying the oceans.
The USSR is a great example of why that "maybe" is a waste of consideration. A powerful government will take the environmental shortcuts too and it'll waive the regulations for itself.
And it's worth noting here that most developed world spending does nothing to help the environment. But it does help to fund cronies and hide government abuse and lack of enforcement of environmental regulation.
Finally, what's wrong with the environmental regulation of the past 40 years? Well, aside from being a job-killing morass that is. If you want to change environmental regulation, do so in a way that helps businesses rather than just encourages the ongoing shift of power to China and elsewhere.
It's tempting to take the position that until something is proved in court the only fair thing is to do nothing about it. I'm not sure that gets the balance right - you risk harm to innocent parties in either case, so there is no good solution.
It's not just tempting, it's the right thing to do. The problem here is what's the threshold of proof to get on a list of "suspicion" registry? If it's not just as firm as actual conviction of a crime, then it's punishment without due process, perhaps libel as well.
A free society has no place for public accusations or suspicions without evidence that can be gamed by anyone with a grudge, particularly the authorities.
Obviously, this is over the top in this case - sadly police have got more process driven, and common sense has gone out of the window a bit.
There's one word to describe this situation - unaccountability. Established procedures can be used to insure that some common task, such as arresting someone, is done right. But they can also be used to evade responsibility. Zero tolerance policies and similarly heavy-handed responses no matter how slight the issue are an example of procedure gone wrong.
This is just me pointing out a lying bully who is deliberately misleading people.
The obvious rebuttal here is that words have meaning.
Bully: a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker
Blustering means among other things threatening. Since I have yet to be threatening in this thread, a key component of bullying is missing. Similarly, browbeating is coercion to get someone to do something. That's not happening either.
Similarly, "lying" means intentional spreading of a falsehood. You never bothered to say specifically what of what I wrote was a falsehood or why. You apparently do disagree with the observation:
This is an example. We have a bald assertion that the Hugo picks by "the puppies" were chosen on the basis of politics.
Note that no one in this thread has bothered to provide evidence or reason to dispute my observation. It's all empty assertions and noise. One can get very tired of that.
This is no "debate".
True, I won that when you refused to and continue to refuse to back up any statements you made. You've only made my argument stronger emotionally since.
Nobody cares that you think for some bizarre reason that I'm a lying bully. You give out those insults like candy and with about as much thought as breathing. There's no weight or credibility to it. And as I noted earlier, that accusation just strengthens my rhetorical position. Unfair, aggressive attacks do that for the one attacked.
You start off arguing to fail. Stop that. You need to up your game.
Your shotgun "inexperienced" thing is a textbook case of attempting to bully the kiddies and hilariously having utterly no idea that you are discussing things with someone older than yourself.
Except that it's not. You're just saying shit again.
Above I was just correcting what appeared to be deliberate misdirection and misinformation on your part and you got very insulting about it.
In your usual thoroughly incompetent way. If I really were delivering deliberate misdirection and misinformation, I couldn't buy better support than what you've given me. You need to learn how not to bake failure into your arguments. For example, a weak ad hominem attack like you started with, because of assertions you made which you can't even bother to back with the minimum of evidence, is a classic way to come out swinging and losing.
But in turn, I get easy theater and narrative to show to everyone else. Look? See how I'm getting unfairly persecuted by this ignorant guy for being right?
It doesn't matter now, but some day, you'll be in a situation where you need to persuade someone else to keep something bad from happening or lessen its impact. Maybe a friend or loved one is harming themselves, maybe your company is thinking about doing something really stupid, maybe your society is pushing the self-destruct button. Even if persuasion can't prevent or reverse bad choices, it can still result in a better outcome. But you have to have the skills in the first place for it to work. Slashdot is a place you can learn those skills, should you ever choose to pay attention.
Look at historical debates such as "does smoking cause cancer" and current debates on climate change .... many sciences are subject to the influence of politics and agendas, and tragically, there are scientists who allow themselves to be so influenced.
Sure, there are many subjects with significant financial or ideological value, but there's more than that where the only things at stake are the egos of the researchers involved.
Economics is not a science, no matter how many times you and your finance buddies tell yourselves that it is.
But neither are physics, chemistry, etc, sciences because of how many times you and your finance buddies tell yourselves they are. They are all sciences because they are systematic empirical studies of some part of the real world. The difference with economics is that there are far stronger incentives to corrupt observations and models than with most other sciences.
How else did you manage to find something to pick at with the report?
I knew where to look for the problems. And the number one problem with this sort of study is an artificially low discount rate which exaggerates future costs.
What an utterly pathetic shotgun attempt at bullying in the hope you hit someone younger.
Bullying doesn't mean disagreement or even insults. Nor do I care if you are physically older or younger than me. What I care about is your completely inadequate and incompetent efforts at debate.
I have to say, my original accusation looks now to be statement of fact than the witty rejoinder I originally planned it to be. If I really were as dishonest and fraudulent as you seem to think I am, I couldn't pay someone to do a better job for me than you are doing right now. Maybe you ought to think about those unintended consequences?
Those subsidies will pay off in the coming decades when those things become cheap enough for everyone.
Unless, of course, that doesn't happen. Just because you assert something will happen doesn't mean it will.
this is one of the first detailed analyses of the methods and costs of dealing with global warming that I've seen that is not from an advocacy group
What's detailed about it? They assume various estimates about costs are correct and use a low discount rate.
Usually only as the observer and not as an experienced perpetrator such as yourself
I think no one can disagree that you are inexperienced.
Are you in politics, "public relations", "social media worker", advertising or just an unpaid person fond of manipulation? Either way this current "spin" of pretending rather blatant student politics style bullshit is not happening shows a distinct lack of integrity and only makes my wonder at the motives of an apologist for such bullshit. It's not just about being anti-science this time, so what is it about?
I think it shows poor reasoning skills on your part. Even if your accusations were true, you're pointlessly making an idiot out of yourself since you would have nothing to back it up. You probably should learn to come up with support when you make assertions. Just saying shit marks you as an idiot.
We can use those out of shape reasoning skills here. There isn't a financial or propaganda advantage to spending endless hours on Slashdot, especially without a coherent theme. Sorry, we're just not that important and human labor is rather expensive. In addition, it's an enormous pain to find any posts on Slashdot via the search engines. So there's no point to using Slashdot to poison the well that way either.
Finally, why should it be such a big deal that someone disagrees with you that you have to spin conspiracy theories about it? I got used to it. You should too.
And most people on Slashdot don't launch rockets either. It's quite relevant to the argument that someone should receive special consideration because they do launch rockets.
This might sound strange, but I sure wish the younger generations would get over themselves and "grow up".
No, I think this more has to do with a combination of hubris and Red Hat capturing a number of open source utility projects.
If you have more than a sentence in your title, you're doing it wrong.
He'll, of course, be most well known for his celebrated surgery theory on sexifolds, particularly the foundational Sexconker Decomposition Theorem which demonstrates that all sexifolds can be decomposed into basic topological components such as penisifolds, breastifolds, and analfolds. And if the sexifold is not oriented, then it has a peculiar bisexual structure.
Anyone who pays attention to human nature would eventually have such experience to such dishonesty.
Sorry, lowering the albedo.
And we should allow a major crime to go unpunished because someone might hold a grudge for more than four decades? This is nonsense, especially since you have yet to explain how someone will determine who voted for who.
Actually, no. Conservation of energy means that converting solar radiation in electricity simply changes the form of the energy, not the amount.
Energy can be heating up mass on Earth or it can be radiating to deep space. Solar power causes more energy to be contained on Earth, heating it up rather than the latter. Energy is conserved, but it need not be present on Earth. And I already stated the mechanisms by which this would happen.
1) It's not the holy grail. It's been shown that if our energy consumption continues to grow along its current trajectory, then the temperature at the surface of the earth will reach the boiling point in several hundred years. Now, presumably the growth of our energy consumption will slow down at some point. But what this thought experiment demonstrates is that any power source that generates denovo heat on the earth is part of the problem. Ultimately, the source of our power will have to be the sun.
Solar also generates heat since it is increasing the albedo of a part of Earth and the result electricity produced will generate heat through work or inefficiency.
And physical exponential growth forever is not a serious scenario to consider.