and placing trust in an experiment or model's results only as far as
Experiments and models are very different things. Experiments test how well your model matches the actual universe. Models test how well your model matches your model.
I'd say that we should be tazing texters, physically beating serial talkers, and reserving the instant death penalty for people who answer their cell phones.
AGW is a complex thing - there will be no one conclusive experiment that confirms or blows the whole thing.
AGW has exactly one experiment (computer models are not experiments; they are just expressions of their models), and its results will only be known in retrospect a couple hundred years from now. But even then, they will need to untangle dozens of extraneous factors from the results before drawing any conclusions.
And all of your stuff is right behind your locked door that's easily picked. That means you want other people to take your stuff since you don't live inside a vault. But even then, some highly-skilled people would still be allowed to take your stuff. Unless, of course, you actually DON'T WANT THEM TO. Then taking your stuff is illegal.
SPY (big-ass S&P 500 index ETF; click the "10y" link in the graph). The index went up 73.7% over the past 10 years and it pays about a 1.9% dividend. That's 5.7% per year compounded on the index alone plus another 1.9% dividend = 7.6% per year return over the past 10 years.
Even better, a NASDAQ ETF QQQ has returned 152% over the past 10 years with a dividend of 1.2%. This is 9.7% on the index plus 1.2% giving a total compounded annual return of 10.8%! But don't worry, you're totally brilliant for staying out of all of this.
Wind turbines only generate about 20% of their rated power on average, so you're going to need ten thousand instead of two thousand of them. Also, they can go for days on end generating zero power, so you'll also need to build a 4.7-GW nuclear-power plant to back them up.
Since I am a longer-term investor and not a twitchy day-trader, this kind of thing doesn't affect me at all. The great thing about the stock market is that it is instantly and severely self-correcting. I just wish I could get in on more of these mis-pricings on time, as these failures are usually excellent opportunities, if, as I said, I watched the markets every second of the day.
We could spend billions preventing it, or we could spend trillions and trillions dealing with the effects.
More like: we could spend $trillions trying to prevent it and fail, or we could spend $billions counter-acting it and succeed. According to the alarmists, we have already unintentionally manipulated the climate twice: once with CO2 to warm it up, and again with aerosols to cool it down. We could be a lot more effective if we actually did something intentionally. Trying to limit CO2 emissions will fail because people with the power to vote will never accept a materially lower standard of living and alternative energy simply isn't practical.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the bank crashes where the monetary authorities stepped in and no depositors lost even a single penny? That one?
What a fantastic strategy -- to put a few afterthoughts into 99% of their market...
It'll be hackers and the Chinese military that brick these American smartphones before the NSA does.
Lac-Megantic, Quebec anyone? One thing about pipelines is that they don't tend to go through the centers of every small town along their route.
And what happens to the insurance companies if they get it all wrong using the runaway greenhouse model? (Answer: record profits!)
Experiments and models are very different things. Experiments test how well your model matches the actual universe. Models test how well your model matches your model.
How can I vote for you?
It'll be Canada to show you amateurs how it's done.
No, he wouldn't; he'd be protected by his union.
At this stage, it's only an hypothesis.
AGW has exactly one experiment (computer models are not experiments; they are just expressions of their models), and its results will only be known in retrospect a couple hundred years from now. But even then, they will need to untangle dozens of extraneous factors from the results before drawing any conclusions.
Why are variables called "bool"s instead of "leib"s?
Car, scooter, bicycle? Something with wheels.
The COBOL program should be subtracting 06 from 13 giving 7!
And all of your stuff is right behind your locked door that's easily picked. That means you want other people to take your stuff since you don't live inside a vault. But even then, some highly-skilled people would still be allowed to take your stuff. Unless, of course, you actually DON'T WANT THEM TO. Then taking your stuff is illegal.
There is also being an asshole who is stealing stuff.
SPY (big-ass S&P 500 index ETF; click the "10y" link in the graph). The index went up 73.7% over the past 10 years and it pays about a 1.9% dividend. That's 5.7% per year compounded on the index alone plus another 1.9% dividend = 7.6% per year return over the past 10 years.
Even better, a NASDAQ ETF QQQ has returned 152% over the past 10 years with a dividend of 1.2%. This is 9.7% on the index plus 1.2% giving a total compounded annual return of 10.8%! But don't worry, you're totally brilliant for staying out of all of this.
I'm sure they'll call the next model the Surface One to avoid any confusion.
Just compare the 95% of mega-corps that aren't in a bankruptcy death spiral to the 70% of governments that are.
What the hell? There is no commercial use. Stop being dicks and release it to the public domain.
Wind turbines only generate about 20% of their rated power on average, so you're going to need ten thousand instead of two thousand of them. Also, they can go for days on end generating zero power, so you'll also need to build a 4.7-GW nuclear-power plant to back them up.
No.
Since I am a longer-term investor and not a twitchy day-trader, this kind of thing doesn't affect me at all. The great thing about the stock market is that it is instantly and severely self-correcting. I just wish I could get in on more of these mis-pricings on time, as these failures are usually excellent opportunities, if, as I said, I watched the markets every second of the day.
More like: we could spend $trillions trying to prevent it and fail, or we could spend $billions counter-acting it and succeed. According to the alarmists, we have already unintentionally manipulated the climate twice: once with CO2 to warm it up, and again with aerosols to cool it down. We could be a lot more effective if we actually did something intentionally. Trying to limit CO2 emissions will fail because people with the power to vote will never accept a materially lower standard of living and alternative energy simply isn't practical.
We can always just buy weapons-grade plutonium from North Korea and Iran.
You forgot "rich".