by the time re-elections are due, everyone has forgotten about the past 2-4 years of shenanigans.
If the electorate truly has such a short attention span, then annual impeachments aren't going to help. There is nothing that can help such a bunch of gold-fish-brained mouth breathers.
Feinstein may not be the brightest bulb in the drawer, but she's sincere, she's passionate about her causes, and she's at least as bright as the average voter (let's be honest, her constituency can't tell the difference between encryption and compression at a mathematical level either).
Maybe she's not actually sincere, but she does a good enough job faking it, if she's not. And that's what counts:)
Come on man, I'm talking about Jefferson, and it makes you think of the civil war?:)
Anyway, the constitutional argument for limited federal government is probably dead, so if you want to get there, it would probably be more effective to build an argument based on utilitarian reasons, that it, "a smaller government is better because......."
People don't get to arbitrarily define how they use words.
Clearly they do, because you're trying to do it yourself right now.
These terms are clearly understood, and well used in economics, and you're whining like a high-school student.
Uber is a technological advancement (for economic purposes)
If you're going to comment on a story about economics, and tell economists they are wrong, at least learn how economists define the words they use. Otherwise you are attacking a strawman.
Uber is a technological advancement (for economic purposes) if technology is applied in a way that makes the system more efficient (I don't know if Uber is more efficient than taxis, I just know that I can get an Uber, but not a Taxi).
Amazon is a technological advancement (for economic purposes) if technology is applied in a way that makes the system more efficient. Amazon's logistical system is actually extremely impressive.
Nah, here's some actual science: "much work remains before we can model hydroclimate variability accurately." Here's more science, if you are able to understand that kind of thing. If you can't understand scientific papers, then that's too bad, but you'll have to rely on propaganda from advocacy groups.
Nah, I don't even favor the extension of the commerce clause, but the strict interpretation of the constitution died out with Jefferson, because he was the writer who most staunchly advocated it, but when he became president, and couldn't follow that ideal himself, it became clear that it wasn't a realistic interpretation. (Specifically, the president wasn't given the power to do the Louisiana purchase, but he did it anyway because time was urgent).
So tell us again why the (supposed) failure of the climate models makes the denialist argument correct.
What do you mean by "the denialist argument"? I can't really answer until you clarify that.....some things that might be called the "denialist argument" are clearly incorrect.
3. Your assertion that this means that the temperature will trend under the model trend is therefore, patently ridiculous.
The temperatures have been trending under the models. That's just a matter of measurement. Assuming that they will continue to trend under the models is extrapolation (and of course, may not be correct).
the situation could be far worse than the models suggest.
That's certainly a possible hypothesis, but I don't know of any evidence that supports it.
There's those IPCC reports and all the evidence cited there, as has also been said many times.
I've read a lot of the IPCC report. Which evidence specifically are you referring to from it? Are you one of the people who can't understand the evidence? If so, then I pity you, but I'm more interested in discussing this topic with people who can understand it.
no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government"
Yeah, there is.
Normally I would oppose that kind of plan, because Medicare isn't that great, but realistically what we have now isn't that great, either.
Nah. You're reading more into my comment than what I said. I am not denying that climate scientists do science, rather denying that this particular thing is science.
Scientists don't depend on consensus.
It's not about growing a pair, it's about maximizing income.
Do you:
A) Keep the kids out, because they want to use their phone more than they want to see a movie, or
B) Keep the old people out, because they can't handle modern technology and society.
The answer is: do which ever one makes you the most income.
There's no job statistic that isn't deceiving. That includes labor force participation rate, which doesn't take into consideration people who stop working because they want to retire, and stay-at-home moms/dads.
But this the same nonsense I debunked a year or more ago. Have you forgotten already?
You didn't debunk it. You posted some links to some crappy blogs. You are incapable of debunking it, because of your inability to read scientific papers, so you link to blogs instead. Pathetic.
That's true, it's the website of a group whose admitted goal is advocacy and propaganda. That is why they exist. (Not that it's a bad thing, but it's not science).
That's a cool link, but it's just some words on someone's website.
We had an actual scientific study posted here on Slashdot a few weeks ago that showed that there are no weather changes that can be attributed to AGW.
Slashdot Mirror
by the time re-elections are due, everyone has forgotten about the past 2-4 years of shenanigans.
If the electorate truly has such a short attention span, then annual impeachments aren't going to help. There is nothing that can help such a bunch of gold-fish-brained mouth breathers.
Feinstein may not be the brightest bulb in the drawer, but she's sincere, she's passionate about her causes, and she's at least as bright as the average voter (let's be honest, her constituency can't tell the difference between encryption and compression at a mathematical level either).
:)
Maybe she's not actually sincere, but she does a good enough job faking it, if she's not. And that's what counts
Even so, he has chosen to be an actor and an activist. At this stage, he is at most a science enthusiast.
Which, to be fair, isn't a bad thing.
Come on man, I'm talking about Jefferson, and it makes you think of the civil war? :)
Anyway, the constitutional argument for limited federal government is probably dead, so if you want to get there, it would probably be more effective to build an argument based on utilitarian reasons, that it, "a smaller government is better because......."
People don't get to arbitrarily define how they use words.
Clearly they do, because you're trying to do it yourself right now.
These terms are clearly understood, and well used in economics, and you're whining like a high-school student.
Uber is a technological advancement ( for economic purposes )
If you're going to comment on a story about economics, and tell economists they are wrong, at least learn how economists define the words they use. Otherwise you are attacking a strawman.
Yeah, as soon as robotics become cheap enough, efficiency is going to jump through the roof.
Uber is a technological advancement (for economic purposes) if technology is applied in a way that makes the system more efficient (I don't know if Uber is more efficient than taxis, I just know that I can get an Uber, but not a Taxi).
Amazon is a technological advancement (for economic purposes) if technology is applied in a way that makes the system more efficient. Amazon's logistical system is actually extremely impressive.
Facebook.....is crap.
Nah, here's some actual science: "much work remains before we can model hydroclimate variability accurately." Here's more science, if you are able to understand that kind of thing. If you can't understand scientific papers, then that's too bad, but you'll have to rely on propaganda from advocacy groups.
Nah, I don't even favor the extension of the commerce clause, but the strict interpretation of the constitution died out with Jefferson, because he was the writer who most staunchly advocated it, but when he became president, and couldn't follow that ideal himself, it became clear that it wasn't a realistic interpretation. (Specifically, the president wasn't given the power to do the Louisiana purchase, but he did it anyway because time was urgent).
Don't take it personally, Tom.
Somewhere between five and fifteen, actually.
So tell us again why the (supposed) failure of the climate models makes the denialist argument correct.
What do you mean by "the denialist argument"? I can't really answer until you clarify that.....some things that might be called the "denialist argument" are clearly incorrect.
3. Your assertion that this means that the temperature will trend under the model trend is therefore, patently ridiculous.
The temperatures have been trending under the models. That's just a matter of measurement. Assuming that they will continue to trend under the models is extrapolation (and of course, may not be correct).
the situation could be far worse than the models suggest.
That's certainly a possible hypothesis, but I don't know of any evidence that supports it.
There's those IPCC reports and all the evidence cited there, as has also been said many times.
I've read a lot of the IPCC report. Which evidence specifically are you referring to from it? Are you one of the people who can't understand the evidence? If so, then I pity you, but I'm more interested in discussing this topic with people who can understand it.
no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government"
Yeah, there is.
Normally I would oppose that kind of plan, because Medicare isn't that great, but realistically what we have now isn't that great, either.
I don't disagree lol, but short of having a dictatorship in your favor, there's not really a lot you can do.....
Nah. You're reading more into my comment than what I said. I am not denying that climate scientists do science, rather denying that this particular thing is science.
Scientists don't depend on consensus.
It's not about growing a pair, it's about maximizing income.
Do you:
A) Keep the kids out, because they want to use their phone more than they want to see a movie, or
B) Keep the old people out, because they can't handle modern technology and society.
The answer is: do which ever one makes you the most income.
No sympathy for people who can't even be bothered to apply for a job once a month.
Jobless claims is a deceiving statistic
There's no job statistic that isn't deceiving. That includes labor force participation rate, which doesn't take into consideration people who stop working because they want to retire, and stay-at-home moms/dads.
But this the same nonsense I debunked a year or more ago. Have you forgotten already?
You didn't debunk it. You posted some links to some crappy blogs. You are incapable of debunking it, because of your inability to read scientific papers, so you link to blogs instead. Pathetic.
Here's another one that supports my point: much work remains before we can model hydroclimate variability accurately
Relying on the prior papers is exactly relying on the authority of the group
Yes. And relying on the authority of the group is exactly not science, for reasons that have been shown over and over again.
The NWF is hardly just someone's website.
That's true, it's the website of a group whose admitted goal is advocacy and propaganda. That is why they exist. (Not that it's a bad thing, but it's not science).
If it means we end up like Venus, that's a much bigger problem. I don't think anyone is suggesting that, however.
Oh yes they are.
Global climate change is happening now with current negative results https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/T...
That's a cool link, but it's just some words on someone's website.
We had an actual scientific study posted here on Slashdot a few weeks ago that showed that there are no weather changes that can be attributed to AGW.