Yeah, and Jobs had a good idea of when to back off and compromise. He had style, a really impressive ability to figure out what people really wanted and weren't getting, and a sense of what was practical when. I don't think the current Apple leadership is strong in any of those areas.
What kind of fit does it pitch? Does it refuse to work? Defective chargers and cables can cause fires and even kill people doing not-too-bright things.
There's a significant economic role for the zero-sum game. If we start at the same level and I wind up increasing my wealth by a factor of two thousand and you increase yours by a factor of two, you can certainly buy more than you could before. We also no longer have the same power to run things, and you have to adapt to the world the way I want it. If there's a small government, it isn't going to be able to stop me, while I'll have more influence on a strong government. The thing about the strong government is that you and I have ultimately the same power to decide things. If I make things too hard on you with a strong government, you and your friends can disrupt the political system (see Trump, Donald) so you and a hundred million of your intimate friends have much more of a say with the government.
And, yes, people value positive rights and will give up important things for them. I don't see why you claim this is not so while you claim that people give up very important things in order to get them. Good old von Bismarck was not a guy to give handouts out of the goodness of his heart, and the Germans of the time had the option to disrupt the political system in an effort to establish Socialism, which would give them positive rights. von Bismarck wanted to avoid another 1848, particularly one that might be more successful, so he acted preemptively.
Communism is an economic system where the means of production are held more or less in common, and people are expected to contribute what they can and take according to their needs. It has been shown to work with communities of two or three thousand with a charismatic leader, and can last a generation or two. In these cases, there was generally no problem if someone wanted to leave, so there was no real coercion. The charismatic leader is apparently necessary to make it work on this scale, which is probably what limits it in time, and it requires a small enough group so most people can tell if you're slacking off or taking more than you should. Enlarge that, and it's necessary for a central group to figure out how hard people should be working and what they get, and that's where the totalitarian politics starts. Personally, I think a Communist utopia would be a splendid place to live, except that I'd miss interacting with real humans.
I'm also unclear why you advocate small weak governments, given that you say they tend to get absorbed by large strong governments. If I were setting up a political system, I'd want a system that could last in the real world, and I'd accept a lot of other problems for that. Remember, a government large enough to defend you and your stuff is large enough to kill you and take your stuff.
Climate scientists have noticed that temperatures are going up, and that this is primarily due to human activity. This is pretty elementary stuff, and we know all the mechanisms involved pretty well. The details are insanely complicated, but the thermodynamics are easy to figure out if you can make predictions of changes in Earth's albedo with temperature and added CO2.
I don't know how many climate scientists advocate global warming. Most seem to consider it generally bad.
To repeat myself, carbon taxes don't have to take from the poor and give to the rich. We can structure them to be revenue-neutral and compensate for the regressivity in other ways. Maybe we substitute them for the low part of the FICA taxes and adjust welfare payments. Maybe we supply some compensatory income. There's ways to do these things, and ways to structure the tax system to account for regressive taxation.
You are technically correct in saying businesses don't pay taxes, I suppose, but the money also comes from the shareholders,
A business is making and selling widgets for $10. Now, the cost of making widgets goes up $1 due to the carbon tax. If the business could say "Carbon tax!" and raise its price to $11 and not lose sales, it would be passing the cost onto the customers. However, the business will make fewer sales at $11 rather than $10, so its profits go down. It will wind up at a price between $10 and $11, so customers do pay more, but shareholders receive less.
By allowing rising healthcare costs, you will cause some number of poor/elderly/disabled people to die. By allowing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise, you will cause some number of people to die and suffer. Any government decision, will cause some number of people to die or suffer. You're counting the costs of things you don't like, after exaggerating them, and ignoring the costs of things you like.
My ideology here is making life better for lots of individuals. My methods include paying attention to the best scientific projections available, and trying to get policy tailored around that, rather than any sort of ideology that carries its own "facts" with it. My politics are supporting people I think likely to do good for people, and that includes doing something about global warming.
Typically, things are less predictable than they look in retrospect, not more predictable. The human mind is great at adjusting narratives to things, and if you give the beginning of a story to people, and different endings to different people, and ask them about it, they'll have good-looking reasons why each ending is predictable from the beginning.
Michelson-Morley didn't kill off the aether model by itself. It just added a big problem to the pile. Nor was Special Relativity that influential at the time, because it took time to be accepted. Einstein had a lot of the characteristics of a crackpot, including the certainty that his idea of the Universe was the right one (which is why he never did accept quantum mechanics). The main difference was that he did know physics very well and was right a large number of times.
Relativity really doesn't have anything to do with nuclear explosions. The exact same equation could be used to determine energy released in a chemical explosion, if anyone could very precisely determine explosive mass before and after. It was part of a convenient narrative.
Relativity sparked numerous bad explanations of FTL travel in science fiction, but I'm not sure how useful it has been in pruning scientific hypotheses.
In other words, you're constructing cloud castle indictments in your mind. You are assuming you know her motives, and apparently that she deliberately set things up to leave classified documents on her server, which is ludicrous. She hasn't assassinated anyone; she's just known a lot of people who have died of various causes. I haven't heard anything serious about the State Department spying on people, and the only serious abuse of government power I've seen has been Comey's against her.
Having devoted some time to studying Hitler's rise to power, much of Trump's rhetoric is similar to Hitler's. Trump doesn't appear to be an ideologue like Hitler, and he's definitely not as smart. He is appealing to the same sort of people.
It is possible to get people angry at you without Clinton having to intervene. I haven't noticed Clinton or her campaign getting involved with Eich or Thiel. Snowden has plenty of people both for and against him, and Assange is, among other things, a paranoid anti-US asshole - you know, the type that Republicans hated when I was a kid. The other big difference that you're missing is that vituperation against an individual, for something the individual does, is very different from vituperation against a race or religion.
If Parliament decides to go against the referendum, and the people as a whole really do want Brexit, they can express that in the next election. That's where the will of the people overrules everything else.
There's been a lot of leaked nude photos and sex tapes, but that doesn't mean they were legal. Also, there's a difference between a juicy report of Jolie and the team and a video of the activity in the locker room.
I don't know. Name a time Clinton deliberately ignored the law and we'll talk.
You know what would happen if you were negligent and let classified data out? You'd have a good chance of losing your clearance, perhaps temporarily. You could lose your job. Your annual review probably will not be pleasant. You won't get prosecuted.
Adultery is illegal in my state, although if anyone tried to enforce that law it would be struck down so fast.
What's interesting is that adultery is when a married woman has sex with someone she's not married to. I can go out and screw all the young unmarried woman I physically can and not commit adultery.
Right now, we have some small USB drives around that we use to move things from computer to computer. When you're playing Artemis, for example, it's important that everyone has the same version.
Right now, every computer at these events is compatible with the USB drives with no hassle. Nobody has to dig into a bag, or realize they left their adapter at home. I'd like to keep that going.
They're not going to remove the lock-in. They'd completely lose control of the experience that way, and they wouldn't make enough money from OS sales. Microsoft was the only company that could get away with that, and they seem to be moving away from it.
Macs are going to be able to run non-store apps for a long time to come. They're providing what is essentially a voluntary walled garden. They can't close off source distribution of applications, and they aren't going to cut off binary distribution. Assuming they're at least 10% as smart as I think they are.
I haven't used Mac OSX recently. Is it anywhere near as much of a resource hog as Windows 10?
There's something to be said for a Unix computer that runs some serious professional applications out of the box. There's something to be said against removing all of the USB ports that work with any USB device I've got.
These are the people who took the headphone jack out of their phone. Don't expect rationality.
Steve Jobs had a real talent for deciding what customers would like if they'd used it, and shipping that. He didn't get it right all the time, but he struck it big enough to make it pay off in spades. Since then, Apple seems interested in providing the customers with what they think the customers would like if they'd tried it, and failing miserably.
I'll probably upgrade my iPhone 5S to an SE model sometime over the next year, and then we'll see if they ever make another phone to my stringent specifications, which are "fits into my shirt pocket" and "conveniently attaches to these fairly expensive headphones that I already have and which work just fine". I had no idea I was being so unreasonable.
We seem to be using different definitions of near-term benefits. This got started in a discussion of funding research, so I assumed you were talking about benefits that could be used to direct funding. This means that I'm thinking of benefits that are at least an obvious potential before the work is done. I was also thinking, apparently incorrectly, that you were talking about practical results, instead of answering questions. The immediate benefit of Special Relativity, for example, was that it explained the Michelson-Morley experimental findings. It did so in a way that nobody was going to believe ahead of time, but it was an explanation. We still don't have that many practical uses for it, outside of making the GPS satellite clock rate work correctly.
The term "concentrates" is misleading because it incorporates a zero-sum assumption.
In the first place, there is a role for zero sum in economics. If I want to pay you to do something, the impact on my finances is roughly the same whether our incomes double or not. If, on the other hand, mine doubles and yours doesn't, the impact on me goes down. Unequal incomes create power imbalances, which are often bad in themselves but worth tolerating because enforcing equal incomes turns out to be a really bad idea.
In the second place, individual incomes can decrease while total wealth increases. It takes money to make money, after all, and if the rich make more money faster than the economy expands that's just too bad for the guy on the bottom. Today's minor luxuries are tremendously better than when I was young. In constant dollars, my new Forester is about as expensive as a car in the same role would have been when I was young, and it's a far better vehicle in a very large number of ways. Housing and medical care have become a lot less affordable, and if you can't afford to live in a halfway decent dwelling or take your kid to the doctor you aren't going to care so much about cars and smart phones.
See a pattern there? The promise of positive rights is used to convince people to accept autocratic or totalitarian rule.
Sure, I see a pattern. People value positive rights so much they'll give up fundamental liberties for them. This means that a society that doesn't provide them is very vulnerable to subversion and revolution, and that enforcing the lack of them is depriving people of something they want very, very much.
The promise of the classical liberal and Enlightenment, namely a state that offers only negative rights, has a hard time competing, both because people are afraid to take responsiblity for their own lives,
Irrelevant. I can think of types of nonhuman people who would find Communism ideal, or anarchy, or pretty much everything else. That doesn't mean Communism is a good idea for actual humans. Similarly, if you're saying that Libertarianism is the right political system for humans, but you wind up complaining that it doesn't work for actual humans for some reason or other, you're contradicting yourself. People are what they are, and a political system that doesn't work is of only speculative interest.
All classes of Roman citizens became much wealthier over time, even the poor. Whether inequality increased or not is hard to tell, but it is clear that in Rome, status and power were largely the result of military success and political influence, not business skill.
A typical Early Republic Roman probably owned a farm and lived off it. A typical Late Republican Roman likely lived as a client who showed up at a patron's house every day and did what he was told in order to get the bare necessities of living. The life of a farmer had to be pretty hard, but I'd consider one to be richer than the client. Your idea of status and power holds to some extent for the Early Republic, but by the Late Republic status and power were largely related to money, although there were military and political ways to get power and status (and then money). I don't think you understand the changes in the Roman Republic over time.
The actually liberal, free market, and democratic societies tend to be smaller and local; what has made them historically unstable is that autocratic or totalitarian societies create big armies and take them over.
I consider size to matter here. Almost anything would work for a small or limited enough group. Communism has worked wonderfully in small towns with charismatic leaders for a generation or so. That doesn't mean it was the right thing to try to impose on the Russian Empire. A political system that never seems to happen for a large country is questionable at best. One that keeps getting stomped is not viable, no matter what the reasons.
The tragedy of the commons isn't about malice or misunderstanding. It's a variation of the prisoner's dilemma, and is based on the rational thought process that ruthlessly exploiting the commons or ratting out the other prisoner is always the right choice for an individual. I can sacrifice to reduce my CO2 emissions, and it won't make a single perceptible bit of difference to anyone. If the entire population of the US sacrifices along with me, we start seeing some return on sacrifice.
Carbon taxes don't have to take from the poor and give to the rich. It's all in how they're structured.
Carbon taxes would use the power of the marketplace to efficiently reduce CO2 emissions. If industry A finds it difficult to reduce emissions, it can pay taxes, while industry B finds it'c cheaper to cut CO2 emissions than to pay the taxes. Consumers shift from A's products to B's products according to their individual desires and resources. Individuals get to try apparently stupid solutions out, and if they work, get them into production without worrying if they don't qualify under subsection R, paragraph 13 as a CO2 reduction technology.
No, for everybody who finds it more plausible that an entire branch of science must be corrupt and deliberately pushing toward a political end rather than trying to find the truth or something than that something is happening.
The term "denialist" is parallel with "Holocaust denialist". It refers to people who deny something without any reference to any evidence. A skeptic says "I'm not convinced yet." Someone who genuinely believes it isn't happening could just say so. The denialist starts with the premise that AGW isn't happening, and deals with all evidence for it by finding some way to claim the evidence isn't correct. The scientific community says it's happening, so the scientific community is corrupt and only saying that for political reasons. There's mountains of evidence that the planetary surface is warming, so the denialist looks through it for a small apparent contradiction and says that invalidates the evidence.
If this doesn't describe you, you're not a denialist. Calling it denialism doesn't interfere with science, because a denialist is someone who isn't gong to provide sound observations or arguments. Do you have a problem with scientists dismissing the contributions of astrology? Astrology is better than denialism, since it doesn't contradict as much of what we know to be true.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be better to say that Apple used to create superior interfaces. I don't see any signs of that talent remaining.
Lots of people want Apple software, and are willing to pay for it. Microsoft is doing its best to encourage Mac OSX and Linux growth.
Yeah, and Jobs had a good idea of when to back off and compromise. He had style, a really impressive ability to figure out what people really wanted and weren't getting, and a sense of what was practical when. I don't think the current Apple leadership is strong in any of those areas.
What kind of fit does it pitch? Does it refuse to work? Defective chargers and cables can cause fires and even kill people doing not-too-bright things.
There's a significant economic role for the zero-sum game. If we start at the same level and I wind up increasing my wealth by a factor of two thousand and you increase yours by a factor of two, you can certainly buy more than you could before. We also no longer have the same power to run things, and you have to adapt to the world the way I want it. If there's a small government, it isn't going to be able to stop me, while I'll have more influence on a strong government. The thing about the strong government is that you and I have ultimately the same power to decide things. If I make things too hard on you with a strong government, you and your friends can disrupt the political system (see Trump, Donald) so you and a hundred million of your intimate friends have much more of a say with the government.
And, yes, people value positive rights and will give up important things for them. I don't see why you claim this is not so while you claim that people give up very important things in order to get them. Good old von Bismarck was not a guy to give handouts out of the goodness of his heart, and the Germans of the time had the option to disrupt the political system in an effort to establish Socialism, which would give them positive rights. von Bismarck wanted to avoid another 1848, particularly one that might be more successful, so he acted preemptively.
Communism is an economic system where the means of production are held more or less in common, and people are expected to contribute what they can and take according to their needs. It has been shown to work with communities of two or three thousand with a charismatic leader, and can last a generation or two. In these cases, there was generally no problem if someone wanted to leave, so there was no real coercion. The charismatic leader is apparently necessary to make it work on this scale, which is probably what limits it in time, and it requires a small enough group so most people can tell if you're slacking off or taking more than you should. Enlarge that, and it's necessary for a central group to figure out how hard people should be working and what they get, and that's where the totalitarian politics starts. Personally, I think a Communist utopia would be a splendid place to live, except that I'd miss interacting with real humans.
I'm also unclear why you advocate small weak governments, given that you say they tend to get absorbed by large strong governments. If I were setting up a political system, I'd want a system that could last in the real world, and I'd accept a lot of other problems for that. Remember, a government large enough to defend you and your stuff is large enough to kill you and take your stuff.
Climate scientists have noticed that temperatures are going up, and that this is primarily due to human activity. This is pretty elementary stuff, and we know all the mechanisms involved pretty well. The details are insanely complicated, but the thermodynamics are easy to figure out if you can make predictions of changes in Earth's albedo with temperature and added CO2.
I don't know how many climate scientists advocate global warming. Most seem to consider it generally bad.
To repeat myself, carbon taxes don't have to take from the poor and give to the rich. We can structure them to be revenue-neutral and compensate for the regressivity in other ways. Maybe we substitute them for the low part of the FICA taxes and adjust welfare payments. Maybe we supply some compensatory income. There's ways to do these things, and ways to structure the tax system to account for regressive taxation.
You are technically correct in saying businesses don't pay taxes, I suppose, but the money also comes from the shareholders,
A business is making and selling widgets for $10. Now, the cost of making widgets goes up $1 due to the carbon tax. If the business could say "Carbon tax!" and raise its price to $11 and not lose sales, it would be passing the cost onto the customers. However, the business will make fewer sales at $11 rather than $10, so its profits go down. It will wind up at a price between $10 and $11, so customers do pay more, but shareholders receive less.
By allowing rising healthcare costs, you will cause some number of poor/elderly/disabled people to die. By allowing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise, you will cause some number of people to die and suffer. Any government decision, will cause some number of people to die or suffer. You're counting the costs of things you don't like, after exaggerating them, and ignoring the costs of things you like.
My ideology here is making life better for lots of individuals. My methods include paying attention to the best scientific projections available, and trying to get policy tailored around that, rather than any sort of ideology that carries its own "facts" with it. My politics are supporting people I think likely to do good for people, and that includes doing something about global warming.
Typically, things are less predictable than they look in retrospect, not more predictable. The human mind is great at adjusting narratives to things, and if you give the beginning of a story to people, and different endings to different people, and ask them about it, they'll have good-looking reasons why each ending is predictable from the beginning.
Michelson-Morley didn't kill off the aether model by itself. It just added a big problem to the pile. Nor was Special Relativity that influential at the time, because it took time to be accepted. Einstein had a lot of the characteristics of a crackpot, including the certainty that his idea of the Universe was the right one (which is why he never did accept quantum mechanics). The main difference was that he did know physics very well and was right a large number of times.
Relativity really doesn't have anything to do with nuclear explosions. The exact same equation could be used to determine energy released in a chemical explosion, if anyone could very precisely determine explosive mass before and after. It was part of a convenient narrative.
Relativity sparked numerous bad explanations of FTL travel in science fiction, but I'm not sure how useful it has been in pruning scientific hypotheses.
In other words, you're constructing cloud castle indictments in your mind. You are assuming you know her motives, and apparently that she deliberately set things up to leave classified documents on her server, which is ludicrous. She hasn't assassinated anyone; she's just known a lot of people who have died of various causes. I haven't heard anything serious about the State Department spying on people, and the only serious abuse of government power I've seen has been Comey's against her.
Having devoted some time to studying Hitler's rise to power, much of Trump's rhetoric is similar to Hitler's. Trump doesn't appear to be an ideologue like Hitler, and he's definitely not as smart. He is appealing to the same sort of people.
It is possible to get people angry at you without Clinton having to intervene. I haven't noticed Clinton or her campaign getting involved with Eich or Thiel. Snowden has plenty of people both for and against him, and Assange is, among other things, a paranoid anti-US asshole - you know, the type that Republicans hated when I was a kid. The other big difference that you're missing is that vituperation against an individual, for something the individual does, is very different from vituperation against a race or religion.
If Parliament decides to go against the referendum, and the people as a whole really do want Brexit, they can express that in the next election. That's where the will of the people overrules everything else.
There's been a lot of leaked nude photos and sex tapes, but that doesn't mean they were legal. Also, there's a difference between a juicy report of Jolie and the team and a video of the activity in the locker room.
I don't know. Name a time Clinton deliberately ignored the law and we'll talk.
You know what would happen if you were negligent and let classified data out? You'd have a good chance of losing your clearance, perhaps temporarily. You could lose your job. Your annual review probably will not be pleasant. You won't get prosecuted.
Adultery is illegal in my state, although if anyone tried to enforce that law it would be struck down so fast.
What's interesting is that adultery is when a married woman has sex with someone she's not married to. I can go out and screw all the young unmarried woman I physically can and not commit adultery.
Right now, we have some small USB drives around that we use to move things from computer to computer. When you're playing Artemis, for example, it's important that everyone has the same version.
Right now, every computer at these events is compatible with the USB drives with no hassle. Nobody has to dig into a bag, or realize they left their adapter at home. I'd like to keep that going.
They're not going to remove the lock-in. They'd completely lose control of the experience that way, and they wouldn't make enough money from OS sales. Microsoft was the only company that could get away with that, and they seem to be moving away from it.
Macs are going to be able to run non-store apps for a long time to come. They're providing what is essentially a voluntary walled garden. They can't close off source distribution of applications, and they aren't going to cut off binary distribution. Assuming they're at least 10% as smart as I think they are.
I haven't used Mac OSX recently. Is it anywhere near as much of a resource hog as Windows 10?
There's something to be said for a Unix computer that runs some serious professional applications out of the box. There's something to be said against removing all of the USB ports that work with any USB device I've got.
Yeah, but don't underestimate the bandwidth of an SUV barreling down the highway completely loaded with micro-SD cards.
These are the people who took the headphone jack out of their phone. Don't expect rationality.
Steve Jobs had a real talent for deciding what customers would like if they'd used it, and shipping that. He didn't get it right all the time, but he struck it big enough to make it pay off in spades. Since then, Apple seems interested in providing the customers with what they think the customers would like if they'd tried it, and failing miserably.
I'll probably upgrade my iPhone 5S to an SE model sometime over the next year, and then we'll see if they ever make another phone to my stringent specifications, which are "fits into my shirt pocket" and "conveniently attaches to these fairly expensive headphones that I already have and which work just fine". I had no idea I was being so unreasonable.
You have a point? Other than establishing that models don't do well modeling what they were never intended to model?
We seem to be using different definitions of near-term benefits. This got started in a discussion of funding research, so I assumed you were talking about benefits that could be used to direct funding. This means that I'm thinking of benefits that are at least an obvious potential before the work is done. I was also thinking, apparently incorrectly, that you were talking about practical results, instead of answering questions. The immediate benefit of Special Relativity, for example, was that it explained the Michelson-Morley experimental findings. It did so in a way that nobody was going to believe ahead of time, but it was an explanation. We still don't have that many practical uses for it, outside of making the GPS satellite clock rate work correctly.
In the first place, there is a role for zero sum in economics. If I want to pay you to do something, the impact on my finances is roughly the same whether our incomes double or not. If, on the other hand, mine doubles and yours doesn't, the impact on me goes down. Unequal incomes create power imbalances, which are often bad in themselves but worth tolerating because enforcing equal incomes turns out to be a really bad idea.
In the second place, individual incomes can decrease while total wealth increases. It takes money to make money, after all, and if the rich make more money faster than the economy expands that's just too bad for the guy on the bottom. Today's minor luxuries are tremendously better than when I was young. In constant dollars, my new Forester is about as expensive as a car in the same role would have been when I was young, and it's a far better vehicle in a very large number of ways. Housing and medical care have become a lot less affordable, and if you can't afford to live in a halfway decent dwelling or take your kid to the doctor you aren't going to care so much about cars and smart phones.
Sure, I see a pattern. People value positive rights so much they'll give up fundamental liberties for them. This means that a society that doesn't provide them is very vulnerable to subversion and revolution, and that enforcing the lack of them is depriving people of something they want very, very much.
Irrelevant. I can think of types of nonhuman people who would find Communism ideal, or anarchy, or pretty much everything else. That doesn't mean Communism is a good idea for actual humans. Similarly, if you're saying that Libertarianism is the right political system for humans, but you wind up complaining that it doesn't work for actual humans for some reason or other, you're contradicting yourself. People are what they are, and a political system that doesn't work is of only speculative interest.
A typical Early Republic Roman probably owned a farm and lived off it. A typical Late Republican Roman likely lived as a client who showed up at a patron's house every day and did what he was told in order to get the bare necessities of living. The life of a farmer had to be pretty hard, but I'd consider one to be richer than the client. Your idea of status and power holds to some extent for the Early Republic, but by the Late Republic status and power were largely related to money, although there were military and political ways to get power and status (and then money). I don't think you understand the changes in the Roman Republic over time.
I consider size to matter here. Almost anything would work for a small or limited enough group. Communism has worked wonderfully in small towns with charismatic leaders for a generation or so. That doesn't mean it was the right thing to try to impose on the Russian Empire. A political system that never seems to happen for a large country is questionable at best. One that keeps getting stomped is not viable, no matter what the reasons.
The tragedy of the commons isn't about malice or misunderstanding. It's a variation of the prisoner's dilemma, and is based on the rational thought process that ruthlessly exploiting the commons or ratting out the other prisoner is always the right choice for an individual. I can sacrifice to reduce my CO2 emissions, and it won't make a single perceptible bit of difference to anyone. If the entire population of the US sacrifices along with me, we start seeing some return on sacrifice.
Carbon taxes don't have to take from the poor and give to the rich. It's all in how they're structured.
Carbon taxes would use the power of the marketplace to efficiently reduce CO2 emissions. If industry A finds it difficult to reduce emissions, it can pay taxes, while industry B finds it'c cheaper to cut CO2 emissions than to pay the taxes. Consumers shift from A's products to B's products according to their individual desires and resources. Individuals get to try apparently stupid solutions out, and if they work, get them into production without worrying if they don't qualify under subsection R, paragraph 13 as a CO2 reduction technology.
No, for everybody who finds it more plausible that an entire branch of science must be corrupt and deliberately pushing toward a political end rather than trying to find the truth or something than that something is happening.
The term "denialist" is parallel with "Holocaust denialist". It refers to people who deny something without any reference to any evidence. A skeptic says "I'm not convinced yet." Someone who genuinely believes it isn't happening could just say so. The denialist starts with the premise that AGW isn't happening, and deals with all evidence for it by finding some way to claim the evidence isn't correct. The scientific community says it's happening, so the scientific community is corrupt and only saying that for political reasons. There's mountains of evidence that the planetary surface is warming, so the denialist looks through it for a small apparent contradiction and says that invalidates the evidence.
If this doesn't describe you, you're not a denialist. Calling it denialism doesn't interfere with science, because a denialist is someone who isn't gong to provide sound observations or arguments. Do you have a problem with scientists dismissing the contributions of astrology? Astrology is better than denialism, since it doesn't contradict as much of what we know to be true.