Why do people keep referencing a propaganda site? Rather than point out all the fallacies present in their arguments, I'll just point you to some more current research showing how poorly climate models have been doing: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.
And even that paper acknowledges that there was warming in that period. Why don't you?
WTF are you going on about? "There was warming in that period." Happy? Am I on the list now?
The warming does not fit the models, nor is there a correlation with the increase in CO2. Can you acknowledge that??
First, you're looking at a propaganda site. I don't know where that graph is from, but the "forcings" don't work, and most of the assumptions made in the forcing models have been invalidated by observations. For instance, many used a parameter for forcings based feedbacks from increasing humidity that assumed net increase in temperatures, but it turns out, from long-term observations, that net temperatures decrease with increased humidity (due to cloud cover, which can insulate at night, but the total cover over time shows that the filtering effect of clouds during the day produces more than enough cooling to make up for it.
Many of the other forcing mechanisms that were used in climate models have been invalidated as well. I don't know which models have incorporated which of these tweaks, I don't follow it that deeply. But it looks like C/(W/m2) is either worthless or 1.
as that page shows that calling CO2 is accurate in the English language, and also under EPA guidelines.
Clearly your English needs some work, I can't tell WTF you're trying to say, here.
I see you've gone from quoting a propaganda site to a tyrannical armed bureaucracy that directly funds that propaganda, and many others. I don't think that's better.
The only thing about the Federal government worse than the IRS is the EPA.
As for EPA's determination of CO2 as a pollutant, the Office of Inspector General review their finding, and concluded that not only did they not follow basic scientific method in coming to their conclusions, but they didn't even follow their own guidelines (this from the report):
EPA’s TSD Peer Review Methodology
Did Not Meet OMB Requirements for
Highly Influential Scientific Assessments
EPA fulfilled the statutory requirements for notice and comment rulemakings
mandated in the Administrative Procedur
e Act and in Section 307 of the CAA,
and employed several of its processes de
signed to ensure data quality.
EPA
did not maintain a record of its respon
se and disposition of comments for the two
TSDs that accompanied the proposed and
final rules. Additionally, the panel’s
results and EPA’s response to the panel’s
results were not made available to the
public as is required for a peer review of
a highly influential sc
ientific assessment.
We also noted that this panel did not
fully meet the independence requirements
for reviews of highly influential scien
tific assessments because one of the
panelists was an EPA employee. The OMB
bulletin for peer review states that
“scientists employed by the sponsoring ag
ency are not permitted to serve as
reviewers for highly influential scien
tific assessments.” See appendix A,
question 5, for a more detailed discus
sion of the expert panel process.
no supporting analytical inform
ation was available to show how EPA
made its determination prior to dissem
inating the information. EPA’s guidance
for assessing the quality of externally
generated information does not provide
procedures or steps for assessing outs
ide data or requirements for documenting
such analysis.
Decry it as creeping socialism (or whatever) all you want, but you're looking at a symptom, not the underlying problem.
You have misidentified the problem. It's not any lack of resources, just the opposite, in fact. The real problem is certain elites that want to tell everyone else what to do with their property, because paying taxes on it, and everything it produces, is just not good enough - it's all about control.
Which is why they keep importing so many 3rd world immigrants to shore up the tax base, which has to grow continuously to maintain the central banking system.
The US is facing the same issue, and why they need to accelerate immigration - it's the only thing keeping the population growth from going negative.
Why do people keep referencing a propaganda site? Rather than point out all the fallacies present in their arguments, I'll just point you to some more current research showing how poorly climate models have been doing: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.
The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years. This interpretation is supported by statistical tests of the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal, assuming that either: (1) the models are exchangeable with each other (that is, the 'truth plus error' view); or (2) the models are exchangeable with each other and with the observations (seeSupplementary Information). Differences between observed and simulated 20-year trends have p values (Supplementary Information) that drop to close to zero by 1993–2012 under assumption (1) and to 0.04 under assumption (2) (Fig. 2c). Here we note that the smaller the p value is, the stronger the evidence against the null hypothesis. On this basis, the rarity of the 1993–2012 trend difference under assumption (1) is obvious. Under assumption (2), this implies that such an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years, if 20-year periods are considered statistically independent. Similar results apply to trends for 1998–2012 (Fig. 2d). In conclusion, we reject the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal at the 10% level.
According to current definitions of "pollutant", CO2 fits the bill.
According to Skeptical Science. Which is kind of like saying that under current definitions of "safe", cigarettes fit the bill (according to Philip Morris).
Exactly my point, if even GERMANS can't be rational about this there is no hope for anyone.
The German people have been systematically zombified on this and other issues. They are getting fed a lot of propaganda, they've been led around by people like Hermet Kohl and Angela Merkel for so long they just don't know any better.
Straight out of Agenda 21. Stack-and-pack all the people, allow ownership and taxation of property, but control usage from a central authority, and slowly ban development, and eventually humans entirely, from the vast majority of land.
Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.
That's not even necessary - to close source it - since they can just end up as the only source of signed Linux binaries that run on a critical mass of manufacturer's computers, which require it on their UEFI Secure Boot systems. This is one of the goals of systemd. As outline their own presentation.
Assumptions, as so often before, are the mother of all fuckups. Asking (preferably in a civilized manner) will get you a long way: "Hey, I'm not seeing my logs appear in syslog, is this supposed to be that way, and if not, can you help debug?"
Thanks for that, because this seems to be the source of much of the angst among the systemd detractors. Not that they can't ask the question politely, but that the answer so often is "Yes, it's supposed to be that way, because there is something wrong about the way you've been writing to logs for the last 5 years. You will have to change your code to conform with the systemd-journald way of doing things if you ever want to see your logs again."
Never mind that with systemd, it goes beyond init. systemd as a project are sprouting tentacles everywhere, and projects closer to the user (Gnome for instance) is strongly encouraged to latch on.
This kind of tight coupling is unheard of in Linux history.
Yes, but it's required for the goals of systemd, which include being able to have signed binaries and control of the OS from the firmware all the way up to to user programs and everything, like an Apple walled garden or Windows 8 on secure boot. If you don't believe that's the goal, feel free to check out the Presentation on a perspective systemd for yourself, especially page 6 and the last page.
owing to a software glitch that can reportedly causes the devices to boot to a black screen.
Oh, a "glitch"? Really? That's the explanation, right? That's all we need to know?
Really sick of all this dumbed-down "tech news" these days. Is there a new phone out? Oh, then no tech news! Idiots.
"Glitch" - it's why the IRS lost a bunch of people's emails. It's why nobody could sign up for Obamacare - oh, "it was a glitch". Why did the UK ground all flights for most of a day back it May? Oh, it was a "glitch".
I'm really getting sick of this shit. Is the general public really this stupid?
No they're not. They went down for my girlfriend in New York, by about 40%. Oh, and she couldn't even _get_ an insurance for any reasonable price in California before Obamacare because of her previous episode of breast cancer.
Oh, it worked for your girlfriend. That's a great anecdote. I wonder how many people are paying more so she can pay less? Or did you think it was "free"? The biggest proponents of Obamacare are people like you that have a pre-existing condition, or a relative / loved one in that situation. As you mentioned, though, the New York ALREADY had that rule, so there was no need for a national boondoggle of a law to help your girlfriend. And, clearly, since some states did it without the asinine "individual mandate", the claim that it was required for Obamacare was another LIE.
And yes, Obamacare mandate is a tax. So? Am I supposed to shy away in horror?
You should be horrified that the government has enabled a set of private corporations to collect a tax, yes.
No, it was not. The number of insured people went up and our bill went _down_. I call that a success.
It would have been orders of magnitude cheaper to just put all those people on Medicaid. In fact, that's what a lot of those numbers are, because the exchanges will automatically sign up everyone (including children of ineligible parents) for Medicaid. So we're spending all this money, insurance companies, hospital corporations, and pharmaceutical companies are the big winners, and we're going to say it's a "success" to go from 46 million uninsured to 41 million uninsured? "No cost is too high" is an emotional response, not a rational one.
If Netflix wanted to rent colocation space at Comcast's going rate but Comcast refused, I'd love to see a citation for this.
Netflix also offer interconnects on their own private CDN. Netflix offers what they call "Open Connect". Netflix already has the space, and the data lines, and the caching appliances. Not sure why you think Netflix should pay datacenter "rent" to an ISP for that.
Oh, I see. You're deeply entrenched in the partisan ideology blinders trap. Buying into Krugman's bullshit is one of your worst problems.
You can cherry-pick insurance rates all you want. They are going up for everyone (pre-existing interventionist state systems notwithstanding). Here's your sign, which you will also dismiss because you are one of the partisan shills that are convinced if only the other party could be defeated, everything would be unicorns and rainbows.
The whole premise that anything in the ACA would make health insurance "more affordable" was a LIE. Lie of the year? "If you like your plan, you can keep it."
Rethuglican
How mature. I'm sure those decisions - the same one also made by Democrat governors (or should I use the partisan-bickering-friendly term "Democrap"?) - are all about spite and had NOTHING to do with state budgets and weighing the benefits and risks. Oh, can't be. We have to complain about ending the bickering in Washington while we show them what name-calling and hyper-partisanship is REALLY like.
they could have just let Netflix install caching servers in their data centers like Netflix has done at other ISPs
If Comcast gives out free colo to Netflix, won't its paying colo customers grow envious?
The colos that Netflix installs are paid for by Netflix. Why would you not want to provide improved service to your customers at no cost to yourself? Anyone else that wants to offer colos can do the same thing. Comcast has Google's colos already. But they refused to allow Netflix to do that.
You're an idiot, aren't you? So if young people can get by on $10-a-month 'catastrophic' plans (that don't actually cover anything) then what would a 50-year-olds pay?
That's just a straw man. If you're healthy and don't need a lot of doctor visits and prescription medication, you get a plan that covers trauma, major medical (for serious illness and disease). There are lots of ways to have health coverage without allowing every pharmaceutical company and hospital consortium putting in coverage for all their little pet treatments. And then you've got a nice risk pool, not a corporate welfare program.
If you want to have _affordable_ insurance for everyone then you MUST have less-risky-people paying for more-risky-people.
That's the problem with requiring all these "government approved" mandates that most people don't need - insurance coverage has gone from barely-affordable to even less affordable. Expand Medicare / Medicaid and be done with it. Implementing a welfare tax using insurance companies as revenue collectors is a failure.
So what would you prefer? Competing on price with Chinese labor, in which case those employed in manufacturing will also fall on food stamps and Walmart crap? Or perhaps you'd like to breath smog, like the Chinese are doing thanks to their lack of pollution controls?
You asked the question and answered it yourself. How to "compete" with the Chiners is about manufacturing, not necessarily labor. Automation improves productivity, efficiency, cost, AND reduces pollution. Yet we just gave China a pass to continue increasing pollution for the long term, while requiring even stricter regulations on our own businesses. Why? Do we hate the Chinese and want to kill them? Or do we hate US businesses and want to kill THEM? What I would "prefer" is some movement toward equitable pollution controls on manufacturers, not assigning China all the manufacturing, and assigning the US all the debt required to keep the unemployed from complete homelessness and starvation.
And the only way to do that without tragedy of the commons rising its ugly head is to force the issue through mandating a higher minimum wage.
And where does all the extra money come from? The government does not have some magic wand that can create increased wages. All it can do is inflate the currency, which does not benefit the working class because they are always at the bottom of the rung of the extra cash, so by the time they get it inflation has already taken its toll. Your idea that you can mandate a better economy has been proven to be a fantasy.
An unconditional citizen pay would be even better
Maybe, but as you say, it's unlikely to happen. A better strategy (and one also politically unlikely, but not as unlikely as the "guaranteed income" plan) is to implement a wealth tax. Don't bother with your bitter arguments about the problems with a wealth tax - I heard it all before, and it is feasible and has a proven history.
Free market is a fine tool for adjusting resource usage for optimal outcome, but labor is not just another resource due to the feedback effect it has to demand, and capitalism simply can't deal with a situation where it's no longer the resource that limits output.
I see you've had a taste of the kool-aid, and it's got you see hallucinations. In this case, you think that the labor pool in the US is operating in a free market. It's not. And that is the problem - not that free markets have failed, but that there is not free market for labor due to excessive central planning and interventions.
China's labor market (for its industry, anyway), operates much more like a free market than the one in the US. And it's starting to raise wages (slowly, painfully). Unfortunately, we've just given them a free pass to NOT pay for ANY of the externalalities associated with polluting the environment. You seem to think that's okay. So I assume that's only because you like getting lots of cheap crap from Chinese factories, and would rather see lots of other people suffer to keep the gravy train flowing. I see this as nothing but a "I've got mine - screw you" mentality.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people keep referencing a propaganda site? Rather than point out all the fallacies present in their arguments, I'll just point you to some more current research showing how poorly climate models have been doing: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.
And even that paper acknowledges that there was warming in that period. Why don't you?
WTF are you going on about? "There was warming in that period." Happy? Am I on the list now?
The warming does not fit the models, nor is there a correlation with the increase in CO2. Can you acknowledge that??
First, you're looking at a propaganda site. I don't know where that graph is from, but the "forcings" don't work, and most of the assumptions made in the forcing models have been invalidated by observations. For instance, many used a parameter for forcings based feedbacks from increasing humidity that assumed net increase in temperatures, but it turns out, from long-term observations, that net temperatures decrease with increased humidity (due to cloud cover, which can insulate at night, but the total cover over time shows that the filtering effect of clouds during the day produces more than enough cooling to make up for it.
Many of the other forcing mechanisms that were used in climate models have been invalidated as well. I don't know which models have incorporated which of these tweaks, I don't follow it that deeply. But it looks like C/(W/m2) is either worthless or 1.
Why just since 1880? No "modern times" before then? We at least have writing for at least 4000 back, if not further. Why stop at 1880? Hmmm??
It's a peer reviewed paper. I kind of trust that better than "Dave the pot smoker" on /.
as that page shows that calling CO2 is accurate in the English language, and also under EPA guidelines.
Clearly your English needs some work, I can't tell WTF you're trying to say, here.
I see you've gone from quoting a propaganda site to a tyrannical armed bureaucracy that directly funds that propaganda, and many others. I don't think that's better.
The only thing about the Federal government worse than the IRS is the EPA.
As for EPA's determination of CO2 as a pollutant, the Office of Inspector General review their finding, and concluded that not only did they not follow basic scientific method in coming to their conclusions, but they didn't even follow their own guidelines (this from the report):
Decry it as creeping socialism (or whatever) all you want, but you're looking at a symptom, not the underlying problem.
You have misidentified the problem. It's not any lack of resources, just the opposite, in fact. The real problem is certain elites that want to tell everyone else what to do with their property, because paying taxes on it, and everything it produces, is just not good enough - it's all about control.
wait...since when did IE ever add NPAPI support? It was all ActiveX for them.
Yes, but they have an ActiveX control that runs the NPAPI container. :P
You've convinced Europe.
Which is why they keep importing so many 3rd world immigrants to shore up the tax base, which has to grow continuously to maintain the central banking system.
The US is facing the same issue, and why they need to accelerate immigration - it's the only thing keeping the population growth from going negative.
Why do people keep referencing a propaganda site? Rather than point out all the fallacies present in their arguments, I'll just point you to some more current research showing how poorly climate models have been doing: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.
According to current definitions of "pollutant", CO2 fits the bill.
According to Skeptical Science. Which is kind of like saying that under current definitions of "safe", cigarettes fit the bill (according to Philip Morris).
Exactly my point, if even GERMANS can't be rational about this there is no hope for anyone.
The German people have been systematically zombified on this and other issues. They are getting fed a lot of propaganda, they've been led around by people like Hermet Kohl and Angela Merkel for so long they just don't know any better.
If only the sun's output showed a trend. Gee, a bunch of ideologues with ties to industry providing you with the "truth" of climate change, eh? Sad.
Actually, the amount of relevant radiation that reaches the earth shows a pretty compelling correlation with global temperatures. It's certainly a better correlation that the CO2 concentrations.
Straight out of Agenda 21. Stack-and-pack all the people, allow ownership and taxation of property, but control usage from a central authority, and slowly ban development, and eventually humans entirely, from the vast majority of land.
The goals of systemd
Well done, sir!
Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.
That's not even necessary - to close source it - since they can just end up as the only source of signed Linux binaries that run on a critical mass of manufacturer's computers, which require it on their UEFI Secure Boot systems. This is one of the goals of systemd. As outline their own presentation.
Assumptions, as so often before, are the mother of all fuckups. Asking (preferably in a civilized manner) will get you a long way: "Hey, I'm not seeing my logs appear in syslog, is this supposed to be that way, and if not, can you help debug?"
Thanks for that, because this seems to be the source of much of the angst among the systemd detractors. Not that they can't ask the question politely, but that the answer so often is "Yes, it's supposed to be that way, because there is something wrong about the way you've been writing to logs for the last 5 years. You will have to change your code to conform with the systemd-journald way of doing things if you ever want to see your logs again."
Never mind that with systemd, it goes beyond init. systemd as a project are sprouting tentacles everywhere, and projects closer to the user (Gnome for instance) is strongly encouraged to latch on.
This kind of tight coupling is unheard of in Linux history.
Yes, but it's required for the goals of systemd, which include being able to have signed binaries and control of the OS from the firmware all the way up to to user programs and everything, like an Apple walled garden or Windows 8 on secure boot. If you don't believe that's the goal, feel free to check out the Presentation on a perspective systemd for yourself, especially page 6 and the last page.
owing to a software glitch that can reportedly causes the devices to boot to a black screen.
Oh, a "glitch"? Really? That's the explanation, right? That's all we need to know?
Really sick of all this dumbed-down "tech news" these days. Is there a new phone out? Oh, then no tech news! Idiots.
"Glitch" - it's why the IRS lost a bunch of people's emails. It's why nobody could sign up for Obamacare - oh, "it was a glitch". Why did the UK ground all flights for most of a day back it May? Oh, it was a "glitch".
I'm really getting sick of this shit. Is the general public really this stupid?
No they're not. They went down for my girlfriend in New York, by about 40%. Oh, and she couldn't even _get_ an insurance for any reasonable price in California before Obamacare because of her previous episode of breast cancer.
Oh, it worked for your girlfriend. That's a great anecdote. I wonder how many people are paying more so she can pay less? Or did you think it was "free"? The biggest proponents of Obamacare are people like you that have a pre-existing condition, or a relative / loved one in that situation. As you mentioned, though, the New York ALREADY had that rule, so there was no need for a national boondoggle of a law to help your girlfriend. And, clearly, since some states did it without the asinine "individual mandate", the claim that it was required for Obamacare was another LIE.
And yes, Obamacare mandate is a tax. So? Am I supposed to shy away in horror?
You should be horrified that the government has enabled a set of private corporations to collect a tax, yes.
No, it was not. The number of insured people went up and our bill went _down_. I call that a success.
It would have been orders of magnitude cheaper to just put all those people on Medicaid. In fact, that's what a lot of those numbers are, because the exchanges will automatically sign up everyone (including children of ineligible parents) for Medicaid. So we're spending all this money, insurance companies, hospital corporations, and pharmaceutical companies are the big winners, and we're going to say it's a "success" to go from 46 million uninsured to 41 million uninsured? "No cost is too high" is an emotional response, not a rational one.
If Netflix wanted to rent colocation space at Comcast's going rate but Comcast refused, I'd love to see a citation for this.
Netflix also offer interconnects on their own private CDN. Netflix offers what they call "Open Connect". Netflix already has the space, and the data lines, and the caching appliances. Not sure why you think Netflix should pay datacenter "rent" to an ISP for that.
Oh, I see. You're deeply entrenched in the partisan ideology blinders trap. Buying into Krugman's bullshit is one of your worst problems.
You can cherry-pick insurance rates all you want. They are going up for everyone (pre-existing interventionist state systems notwithstanding). Here's your sign, which you will also dismiss because you are one of the partisan shills that are convinced if only the other party could be defeated, everything would be unicorns and rainbows.
Obamacare is a tax. And if you don't think it's a tax, you're one of the stupid people that Jonathan Gruber was talking about.
The whole premise that anything in the ACA would make health insurance "more affordable" was a LIE. Lie of the year? "If you like your plan, you can keep it."
Rethuglican
How mature. I'm sure those decisions - the same one also made by Democrat governors (or should I use the partisan-bickering-friendly term "Democrap"?) - are all about spite and had NOTHING to do with state budgets and weighing the benefits and risks. Oh, can't be. We have to complain about ending the bickering in Washington while we show them what name-calling and hyper-partisanship is REALLY like.
they could have just let Netflix install caching servers in their data centers like Netflix has done at other ISPs
If Comcast gives out free colo to Netflix, won't its paying colo customers grow envious?
The colos that Netflix installs are paid for by Netflix. Why would you not want to provide improved service to your customers at no cost to yourself? Anyone else that wants to offer colos can do the same thing. Comcast has Google's colos already. But they refused to allow Netflix to do that.
You're an idiot, aren't you? So if young people can get by on $10-a-month 'catastrophic' plans (that don't actually cover anything) then what would a 50-year-olds pay?
That's just a straw man. If you're healthy and don't need a lot of doctor visits and prescription medication, you get a plan that covers trauma, major medical (for serious illness and disease). There are lots of ways to have health coverage without allowing every pharmaceutical company and hospital consortium putting in coverage for all their little pet treatments. And then you've got a nice risk pool, not a corporate welfare program.
If you want to have _affordable_ insurance for everyone then you MUST have less-risky-people paying for more-risky-people.
That's the problem with requiring all these "government approved" mandates that most people don't need - insurance coverage has gone from barely-affordable to even less affordable. Expand Medicare / Medicaid and be done with it. Implementing a welfare tax using insurance companies as revenue collectors is a failure.
So what would you prefer? Competing on price with Chinese labor, in which case those employed in manufacturing will also fall on food stamps and Walmart crap? Or perhaps you'd like to breath smog, like the Chinese are doing thanks to their lack of pollution controls?
You asked the question and answered it yourself. How to "compete" with the Chiners is about manufacturing, not necessarily labor. Automation improves productivity, efficiency, cost, AND reduces pollution. Yet we just gave China a pass to continue increasing pollution for the long term, while requiring even stricter regulations on our own businesses. Why? Do we hate the Chinese and want to kill them? Or do we hate US businesses and want to kill THEM? What I would "prefer" is some movement toward equitable pollution controls on manufacturers, not assigning China all the manufacturing, and assigning the US all the debt required to keep the unemployed from complete homelessness and starvation.
And the only way to do that without tragedy of the commons rising its ugly head is to force the issue through mandating a higher minimum wage.
And where does all the extra money come from? The government does not have some magic wand that can create increased wages. All it can do is inflate the currency, which does not benefit the working class because they are always at the bottom of the rung of the extra cash, so by the time they get it inflation has already taken its toll. Your idea that you can mandate a better economy has been proven to be a fantasy.
An unconditional citizen pay would be even better
Maybe, but as you say, it's unlikely to happen. A better strategy (and one also politically unlikely, but not as unlikely as the "guaranteed income" plan) is to implement a wealth tax. Don't bother with your bitter arguments about the problems with a wealth tax - I heard it all before, and it is feasible and has a proven history.
Free market is a fine tool for adjusting resource usage for optimal outcome, but labor is not just another resource due to the feedback effect it has to demand, and capitalism simply can't deal with a situation where it's no longer the resource that limits output.
I see you've had a taste of the kool-aid, and it's got you see hallucinations. In this case, you think that the labor pool in the US is operating in a free market. It's not. And that is the problem - not that free markets have failed, but that there is not free market for labor due to excessive central planning and interventions.
China's labor market (for its industry, anyway), operates much more like a free market than the one in the US. And it's starting to raise wages (slowly, painfully). Unfortunately, we've just given them a free pass to NOT pay for ANY of the externalalities associated with polluting the environment. You seem to think that's okay. So I assume that's only because you like getting lots of cheap crap from Chinese factories, and would rather see lots of other people suffer to keep the gravy train flowing. I see this as nothing but a "I've got mine - screw you" mentality.