You know how many online ordering sites have a comment box? How about entering, "By accepting my payment, you agree to make your EULA null and void."
You win the Internet today. And why not put in your own T&C while you're at it? For example "In the event buyer finds product unsatisfactory for any reason, you agree to refund all payments (including shipping) and pay return shipping costs."
Best method: post a link to your T&C so the likelihood of them reading them is the same as the likelihood you read theirs.
OMG, not that stupid 17-year number again. You can't start with a local maxima data point and make a valid argument. If you take any other number of years, it has risen. Stop being intentionally misleading.
I did not pull out a random sentence from the paper. It is from the fucking abstract - which, if you didn't know, is a summary of the paper. You, on the other hand, wrote your own abstract that I'm sure the writers wouldn't agree with, or they would have put your statement in the abstract. The only "out of context" the statement had, was that it was not in the context of your opinion.
Scientific societies are just groups of people interested in a common subject and maybe with some minimal credentials. What makes you think they have any authority? Have you ever been a member of a scientific society?
I doubt that the official position of these societies are formed by "some with minimal credentials." Also, many listed are not "merely" societies, but are research institutes. Do you really think so little of scientists?
Almost everybody you listed is not an authority on the matter.
The problem is that you misrepresent an obfuscate what scientists and science says.
First, it wasn't my list. Second, if Atmospheric, Oceanographic, Meteorologic societies aren't authorities, I wonder what you consider an authority. Perhaps Fox News?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/the-guardians-suzanne-goldenberg-jumps-the-shark-again-gets-called-out-by-nyt/
Check out the link.
A lot of things could happen in a thousand years.
We could get hit by an asteroid...
We could get wiped out by an epidemic...
That's silly. But Homo Sapiens certainly did adapt to and survive through the wild temperature fluctuations and sea level changes during the last ice age.
You mean when we were nomadic tribes? Not exactly how we're living in today's world. I'm sure there won't be any problems as millions of people are forced to migrate due to changes in climate. Yes, Homo Sapiens will survive as a species, but many millions will suffer.
A previous post of yours claimed "A lender will only front money if the projected profit is quite high; sometimes 30%." I sure wish I had margins like that.
In this case profit is everything. When a building get built it is usually done on credit. If the profit is not high enough the banks won't lend the money and the building does not get built. The high margins are there because thing go wrong and costs rise. Banks don't like to lose money.
Do you go to work every day and take home nothing? Why should developers do that?
I'm not promoting developers and banks make no profit, and I suspect you know that. But there is a middle ground where the public good can be served along with them making a profit.
So why is the fact that the planning department allowed previous buildings to be build improperly the responsibility of current developers to solve? Developments run on a very tight budget with very strict profit margins. A lender will only front money if the projected profit is quite high; sometimes 30%. Buy building extra parking the profit margin comes down and some good building will not be built.
Slashdot Mirror
displacing a few people
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
You know how many online ordering sites have a comment box? How about entering, "By accepting my payment, you agree to make your EULA null and void."
You win the Internet today. And why not put in your own T&C while you're at it? For example "In the event buyer finds product unsatisfactory for any reason, you agree to refund all payments (including shipping) and pay return shipping costs."
Best method: post a link to your T&C so the likelihood of them reading them is the same as the likelihood you read theirs.
And I'm sure Holland's coastline is the same length as the USA's.
You don't understand. He WANTS to read just blogs that agree with him. That's how deniers work.
OMG, not that stupid 17-year number again. You can't start with a local maxima data point and make a valid argument. If you take any other number of years, it has risen. Stop being intentionally misleading.
The graph below is misleading, and the "0.9 ft Storm" bar is a guess by the HuffPost journalists, not a scientific result.
It is NOT a guess. If you bothered to read the fine print, you'd see that it's based on a previous peak storm tide.
Your position is that the abstract contradicts the paper. Brilliant!
I did not pull out a random sentence from the paper. It is from the fucking abstract - which, if you didn't know, is a summary of the paper. You, on the other hand, wrote your own abstract that I'm sure the writers wouldn't agree with, or they would have put your statement in the abstract. The only "out of context" the statement had, was that it was not in the context of your opinion.
So glad to hear that you're the ultimate arbiter of what was said.
From your own link:
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
So, sorry, but true.
They are formulated by committees. They are subject to political pressures and peer pressures.
What they are not formulated by is a scientific process.
So of course the 97% of published papers that agree with their position don't have anything to do with their positions.
or we can price our current way of living out of the reach of millions, and they can suffer now!
Right, because that's the only alternative.
Scientific societies are just groups of people interested in a common subject and maybe with some minimal credentials. What makes you think they have any authority? Have you ever been a member of a scientific society?
I doubt that the official position of these societies are formed by "some with minimal credentials." Also, many listed are not "merely" societies, but are research institutes. Do you really think so little of scientists?
Almost everybody you listed is not an authority on the matter.
The problem is that you misrepresent an obfuscate what scientists and science says.
First, it wasn't my list. Second, if Atmospheric, Oceanographic, Meteorologic societies aren't authorities, I wonder what you consider an authority. Perhaps Fox News?
I guess your posting meets the criteria for "scientific proof by vigorous assertion and appeal to every authority on the matter".
FTFY
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/the-guardians-suzanne-goldenberg-jumps-the-shark-again-gets-called-out-by-nyt/ Check out the link. A lot of things could happen in a thousand years. We could get hit by an asteroid... We could get wiped out by an epidemic...
More global warming alarmism.
In a related story, antarctic ice is a a record high level sinc3e satellite observations began. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
So your argument against fighting climate change is that we might already be all dead before it matters?
That's silly. But Homo Sapiens certainly did adapt to and survive through the wild temperature fluctuations and sea level changes during the last ice age.
You mean when we were nomadic tribes? Not exactly how we're living in today's world. I'm sure there won't be any problems as millions of people are forced to migrate due to changes in climate. Yes, Homo Sapiens will survive as a species, but many millions will suffer.
So when the bosses of your company do something assholish, you immediately quit?
Spoken like someone who has never lived in a city with more than 10,000 people.
I have lived in the following cities with more than 10,000 people (latest population estimates)
Washington, DC: 646,449
Anaheim, CA: 343,248
Santa Ana, CA: 329,427
Orange, CA: 136,995
Leesburg, VA: 45,936
And worked in the following additional cities with more than 10,000 people:
Irvine, CA: 229,985
Torrance, CA: 147,027
Redondo Beach, CA: 67,693
Herndon, VA: 24,268
And all had enough parking that I didn't need some app to bid on a spot to park.
A previous post of yours claimed "A lender will only front money if the projected profit is quite high; sometimes 30%." I sure wish I had margins like that.
Considering the razor thin margins on development these days there is no room for extras like extra parking.
[Citation needed]
Your comment is no more informed. There is a balance; there is a middle; it's not all or nothing.
Awww, poor developers.
In this case profit is everything. When a building get built it is usually done on credit. If the profit is not high enough the banks won't lend the money and the building does not get built. The high margins are there because thing go wrong and costs rise. Banks don't like to lose money.
Do you go to work every day and take home nothing? Why should developers do that?
I'm not promoting developers and banks make no profit, and I suspect you know that. But there is a middle ground where the public good can be served along with them making a profit.
So why is the fact that the planning department allowed previous buildings to be build improperly the responsibility of current developers to solve? Developments run on a very tight budget with very strict profit margins. A lender will only front money if the projected profit is quite high; sometimes 30%. Buy building extra parking the profit margin comes down and some good building will not be built.
Because profit != everything.