If someone is smart and coming to such bad conclusions, it's because they are missing data. Just need to present it to him in a way he can understand it.
Now the original quote apparently doesn't appear to be on tape. But since both people seem to say it is referring to one highway, in NYC, in 40 years, if CO2 was 560ppm.
A large part of New York was under water in 2012 during Sandy.
Oh, during a hurricane, New York was underwater. You're a real bright spark, what a brilliant argument you've made. Do you really think that's what Hansen was talking about? Go buy yourself a lollipop as a reward for your intelligence, 'cause man, now no one else will for that dumb post you just wrote.
Changes are being directly observed and there is no uncertainty.
It's worth mentioning that strictly speaking, there is uncertainty, but for some of these things it's very very very small.
We need some creative ideas for actions to take besides nothing and the impractical. There have to be more options.
Maybe the right approach is to teach people to look at the error bars. That way they can start to get the concept that some things are very certain, and other things are rather uncertain.
None of the intelligent ones doubt that CO2 warms the atmosphere to some degree. Or if there is an intelligent person who doubts it, I would like to meet them.
That quote is wrong [skepticalscience.com]. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
The quote is not wrong, at most you can say it's off by a margin of error. Your link says New York should be under water by 2028. But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model.
They haven't been very consistent. James Hansen, a very well respected climate scientist was predicting Manhattan would be under water.
Scientists are people, and sometimes they get carried away in the emotion of the moment, just like any other people. That's why we have reproducibility, to counter-act the effect of emotion. Reproducibility is the core of science.
They are not scientists at all. They must be paid by you-know-who.
If they publish a study you agree with, you think they must be right. If they publish a study you disagree with, they must be paid off. Might want to fix your cognitive biases.
Hint: Try being more skeptical of stuff that you agree with than stuff you disagree with.
There are some things about AGW that are well understood. We know that CO2 absorbs some of the heat in the atmosphere, before it can radiate into space. We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm things up.
Some things science doesn't know: what are the effects of warming? How much warming will result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere? How much warming was there in the past? Of course, we have estimates for that last question, but the error bars are huge.
ok, I've been thinking about this overnight, and here are my thoughts (in case you for some reason care). AOC isn't particularly more braindead than any other politician, as you say. So no big deal there, she'll get the hang of it.
The biggest problem I see is that here's what will happen:
1) "Tax the rich" becomes popular.
2) Republicans (and lets face it, a ton of Democrats) realize they need to make a token effort to appease the people
3) They join together (loudly protesting or cheering as needed) and raise the top bracket to 45% on people earning more than $10million a year (the idea is 70% but I don't think that will happen).
4) Everyone is satisfied and goes back to watching TV, or complaining how stupid AOC, Pelosi, or Trump actually is, while
5) Less than two thousand people are affected by the new tax rate, and half of those are able to restructure their income to avoid the new taxes.
In other words, an ineffectual bill will be passed with loopholes that appease anyone who actually knows how to lobby government.
1) Make a new product (selling drugs)
2) Wait until it becomes popular, undercutting the competition
3) drive competitors out of business
4) ????????
5) Discontinue the product
6) Everyone is off drugs cold turkey and profit!
She's going to get a lot of heat in the next few months to a year and how she responds to that will give an indication of her staying power, I guess. Without a doubt she's changed the conversation, even if she doesn't stay.
Bernie was more thoughtful and idealistic. AOC just wants money. I fully admit I might be wrong here. But without ideals to keep you going, you burn out quickly.
AOC is going to end up in some kind of financial scandal before long, and people will be saying, "Where did she get all that money?" And some people will try to justify it irrationally, and others will condemn her without understanding, just like they always do.
Python has an ad-hoc, messy, piece-of-crap type system, which you like for some reason. I don't know why, but I don't judge.
What is clear is that the type system will cause you problems as your project gets larger a larger, a point which you have not refuted, but is by far the more important point.
For frontend, node is a reasonable choice. For backend, node has all the same problems as Python (a very lousy type system), plus backwards compatibility problems that are like butterflies on crack, plus security issues that don't really come up with other systems.
Python is strongly typed, you can look it up.
Python uses duck typing that is checked at runtime, not compile time. That is only strong in a very narrow, academic sense of the word.
More to the point, it doesn't matter if you want to call it weak or strong. It will cause problems as your site grows and you need to refactor things. If you think ahead and build a strong unit test suite, then it will be less of a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
This should be the message here.
That's what you said man. Look at the data, not the message.
Well, show him this video. There's also a video from mythbusters.
If someone is smart and coming to such bad conclusions, it's because they are missing data. Just need to present it to him in a way he can understand it.
Nah. Hansen was wrong. I was right.
Now the original quote apparently doesn't appear to be on tape. But since both people seem to say it is referring to one highway, in NYC, in 40 years, if CO2 was 560ppm.
It's not going to happen. That is, even if CO2 hit 560ppm (which it will by the end of the century), sea level won't rise that much. That's far outside the probability range.
A large part of New York was under water in 2012 during Sandy.
Oh, during a hurricane, New York was underwater. You're a real bright spark, what a brilliant argument you've made. Do you really think that's what Hansen was talking about? Go buy yourself a lollipop as a reward for your intelligence, 'cause man, now no one else will for that dumb post you just wrote.
Yes, the demonstration provides evidence that "carbon" will hold heat.
Good job, you can learn.
Now you need to learn to express yourself concisely. That's a wall of text you wrote, and I'm not sure what you are saying.
Changes are being directly observed and there is no uncertainty.
It's worth mentioning that strictly speaking, there is uncertainty, but for some of these things it's very very very small.
We need some creative ideas for actions to take besides nothing and the impractical. There have to be more options.
Maybe the right approach is to teach people to look at the error bars. That way they can start to get the concept that some things are very certain, and other things are rather uncertain.
One of the hardest elements to predict is the pace of ice-sheet melting. This should be the message here.
Now you're trying to frame the message the way you want it. That may play elsewhere, but I can read data.
Show me the error bars or GTFO, 'cause you ain't doing science.
None of the intelligent ones doubt that CO2 warms the atmosphere to some degree. Or if there is an intelligent person who doubts it, I would like to meet them.
That quote is wrong [skepticalscience.com]. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
The quote is not wrong, at most you can say it's off by a margin of error. Your link says New York should be under water by 2028. But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model.
They haven't been very consistent. James Hansen, a very well respected climate scientist was predicting Manhattan would be under water.
Scientists are people, and sometimes they get carried away in the emotion of the moment, just like any other people. That's why we have reproducibility, to counter-act the effect of emotion. Reproducibility is the core of science.
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case
Yeah, this is one is well supported by experiment. See this for a demonstration. There are equations and references here.
Some scientists doubt that there will be a crisis because of AGW, but none doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere produces a warming effect.
I responded to you, but I admit I think you are ignorant and will not read the things I linked to.
They are not scientists at all. They must be paid by you-know-who.
If they publish a study you agree with, you think they must be right. If they publish a study you disagree with, they must be paid off. Might want to fix your cognitive biases.
Hint: Try being more skeptical of stuff that you agree with than stuff you disagree with.
There are some things about AGW that are well understood. We know that CO2 absorbs some of the heat in the atmosphere, before it can radiate into space. We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm things up.
Some things science doesn't know: what are the effects of warming? How much warming will result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere? How much warming was there in the past? Of course, we have estimates for that last question, but the error bars are huge.
. We need to figure out why the US is the #1 consumer of opioids per capita in the world
What do you think?
ok, I've been thinking about this overnight, and here are my thoughts (in case you for some reason care). AOC isn't particularly more braindead than any other politician, as you say. So no big deal there, she'll get the hang of it.
The biggest problem I see is that here's what will happen:
1) "Tax the rich" becomes popular.
2) Republicans (and lets face it, a ton of Democrats) realize they need to make a token effort to appease the people
3) They join together (loudly protesting or cheering as needed) and raise the top bracket to 45% on people earning more than $10million a year (the idea is 70% but I don't think that will happen).
4) Everyone is satisfied and goes back to watching TV, or complaining how stupid AOC, Pelosi, or Trump actually is, while
5) Less than two thousand people are affected by the new tax rate, and half of those are able to restructure their income to avoid the new taxes.
In other words, an ineffectual bill will be passed with loopholes that appease anyone who actually knows how to lobby government.
Correct. Most illegal aliens entered the country at a port of entry and overstayed their visa.
Is there a reference about this?
We just get manpons
Google has that problem solved!
Give the drugs away free and make it up on volume.
???????
Profit!
Finally a good use for the Google business model.
1) Make a new product (selling drugs)
2) Wait until it becomes popular, undercutting the competition
3) drive competitors out of business
4) ????????
5) Discontinue the product
6) Everyone is off drugs cold turkey and profit!
She's going to get a lot of heat in the next few months to a year and how she responds to that will give an indication of her staying power, I guess. Without a doubt she's changed the conversation, even if she doesn't stay.
Bernie was more thoughtful and idealistic. AOC just wants money. I fully admit I might be wrong here. But without ideals to keep you going, you burn out quickly.
AOC is going to end up in some kind of financial scandal before long, and people will be saying, "Where did she get all that money?" And some people will try to justify it irrationally, and others will condemn her without understanding, just like they always do.
Python has an ad-hoc, messy, piece-of-crap type system, which you like for some reason. I don't know why, but I don't judge.
What is clear is that the type system will cause you problems as your project gets larger a larger, a point which you have not refuted, but is by far the more important point.
Node is the only sensible choice today.
For frontend, node is a reasonable choice. For backend, node has all the same problems as Python (a very lousy type system), plus backwards compatibility problems that are like butterflies on crack, plus security issues that don't really come up with other systems.
Python is strongly typed, you can look it up.
Python uses duck typing that is checked at runtime, not compile time. That is only strong in a very narrow, academic sense of the word.
More to the point, it doesn't matter if you want to call it weak or strong. It will cause problems as your site grows and you need to refactor things. If you think ahead and build a strong unit test suite, then it will be less of a problem.