What people invariably want is a state which has rules enforcing human rights, and little else.
That's not what most people want at all. Most people want roads, education, defense, a framework for business, etc. etc.
It's what Libertarians say they want. Though each wants only the human rights that happen to serve them individually.
We could do away with large swaths of the legal landscape and eliminate large parts of government, both local and federal, if we could just say "do anything you want, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others".
The problem is that huge amounts of what we do infringes on others rights. There's very often a balance between rights of one person and rights of another. That's why an awful lot of those laws were created in the first place.
I just did. And I conclude you don't realise when you are being lied to.
The paper divides research into 8 categories.
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (2) Explicit endorsement without quantification (3) Implicit endorsement (4a) No position (4b) Uncertain (5) Implicit rejection (6) Explicit rejection without quantification (7) Explicit rejection with quantification
The paper itself, reasonably compares 1-3 against 5-7.
Your denialist blog compares 1 against 5-7. i.e. it excludes "Explicit endorsement without qualification", but includes "Explicit rejection without quantification and it excludes "Implicit endorsement" whilst including "Implicit rejection".
Are you prepared to accept that your blog link is a lie, or are you going to join in the lie?
Superwiz, my post to you was impolite and unfair, I apologise. I'm afraid I get so many blowhards here arguing with me, I mistook you for one, and clearly you're not. Likewise with the reading of the paper bit, I'd hadn't realised the person I was responding to in the thread had changed.
Also, I did err when I said "33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW". In my head I knew it was 66/33 the other way. It just didn't come out of my fingers that way.
Until Renaissance there was no concept of a scientist.
Sure. That's why I introduced the term scholars, so I could include intelligent opinion all the way back to the ancient world. But then I brought it back to scientists, because even if there had been a pre-scientific-method consensus, it wouldn't be an equivalent to a consensus of scientists today.
Back to the topic in hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with the way the paper covered the 66% that didn't express an opinion. But rather than repeat why here, I'll just point you to an earlier message. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3760341&cid=43761331
So you can extrapolate this curve and deduce the temperature in 1000 years will be 354F
It's not intended to. But it does show your comments: "global warming stopped about 13 years ago" and "global warming seems to be in a pause" are complete bullshit.
Not that which link I got it from really changes anything. Please note that I am not saying they did not look at 2/3 of the papers, only that they ignored 2/3 when calculating a 97% consensus. Or if you don't like "ignored", perhaps "did not include in the calculations" would work better for you.
It rather does matter where that data came from. As given that the figures and calculation originally come from the paper itself, it cannot be so that they ignored it, nor that they didn't include it in calculations.
Please note also that I am not automatically jumping to the conclusion that there is a sinister reason for not including them in the calculations. There is probably a really good reason.
Sure there is, and it's really obvious if you look at the paper. The 12,000 papers are the results of a search form key terms such as "global warming" in the various scientific paper databases. Of course there are many papers that use those words without actually setting out to come to a conclusion on whether there is AGW. For example, a study of honey-bees might make mention of global warming, without having anything to say about whether humans cause it.
It's the equivalent of putting a search term in to Google. Most of the results won't be relevant.
Nevertheless, as you would expect, the authors were completely transparent, and included all data, including a column of calculations based on the total 12,000 right alongside the filtered 4,000.
To say they ignored or didn't include these papers in calculations, isn't merely wrong, it's insulting. And apparently you did so without even looking at the paper you criticise. That's why I was condescending. Because what you wrote deserved it.
The point is that "progressives" and "liberal" political positions are based on spreading fear and scare tactics: fear of environmental disaster, fear of financial ruin, fear of being out of work without support, fear of getting sick without health insurance, fear of losing one's home, etc. That's not hyperbole, it's fact.
It's not fact. There's not a mainstream leftwing party in the world that's running of the platform "Vote for us, or coastal cities will get flooded, there will be mass starvation and wars, bankers will rob you blind, and gunmen will kill your children in mass shootings!"
What you do see, especially here on Slashdot, is left-wingers supporting the science.
No, that's a myth. There was never a consensus of flat-earthers amongst scholars, even religious ones, let alone a consensus of scientists. Scientists who have expressed an opinion on the the shape of the earth have always said it has a spherical nature. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf
The sin of belief without data is yours, superwiz. Your belief system is based on what you want to believe, not what is.
Oh, and TFA DOES NOT say what comrade soulskill put up there. 97% of the papers DID NOT claim AGW. Only 32.6% of the papers did.
If you'd actually read the paper you link to, you'd know why 33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW. It's because to get their corpus they simply searched for papers with certain key terms such as "global warming". Now that doesn't necessarily get you a paper that is aimed at the question of AGW, simply one that mentions it. It's unsurprising that papers that are not intended to answer the question of whether there is AGW do not do so. They have to be manually filtered down to those that address that question.
Saying climate change is real because 97% of scientists agree is a classic appeal to authority.
So all you need to do is find a quote and a link that says that, here in this thread.
Also you have misused "non-sequitur". A non-sequitur is an argument that makes an inappropriate logical deduction.
No. "non-sequiteur" is Latin for "it does not follow". No more and no less. You looked up the phrase in a list of logical errors. I used it in the classic sense, that what you said did not follow from the conversation that went before. That is a perfect and more common usage than the one you found. There's a gap in your knowledge, not mine.
"Vote for us, or coastal cities will get flooded, there will be mass starvation and wars, bankers will rob you blind, and gunmen will kill your children in mass shootings!"
Conservatives also are prone to making quotes and statistics up, rather than dealing in facts. And to think hyperbole is an actual argument.
Not really. It's just that I've heard your point before, and I'm making a different one. I'm not saying that science disproves god(s). My point is that religions frame their myths in a way that says that they are outside science. That doesn't mean that rational people have to go along with it. Rational people don't believe myths as if they are reality. We know how these myths came about. We know they contradict each other, and we know why.
You say that Father Christmas and fairies are testable hypotheses. But they are no more so than gods. Just because you find some parents who admit to supplying their kids with christmas presents, doesn't mean that there aren't other kids that get theirs from Father Christmas. And you could put as many sensors around a chimney as you like, FC won't register on them because he's magical.
And fairies of course are invisible to people that don't believe them, so you can test those either. You just have to take people's word for them. And believe. And wish upon a star.
Anyone who believes these things isn't rational when they do so. Yet they may be functioning scientists. And that's why I marvel at the brain's ability to hold both rational thought and irrational thought at the same time.
Likewise, TFA mentions that 11,994 papers were included in the survey, but that they arrived at the 97% value by looking at just the 4000-plus papers that took a position on the cause of climate change. Or put another way, they ignored nearly 2/3 of all the papers when calculating that 97%.
But they didn't ignore them, did they. Because when you went to the paper, you instantly found table 3 with columns for both "all papers" and "that expressed a position". That's where you got your 2/3rds from. You can't say they ignored it when you got the figure from the published paper.
The US also has several times the population spread out over a much greater area. This means more doctors serving small isolated communities. That's going to cost more. Also, and I could be entirely wrong on this, but the US is a very litigious culture. Medical expenses will continue to rise as people file malpractice suits. What other countries face similar problems?
Why are you missing out the obvious differences?
America has medical insurance companies which have employees to pay, and shareholders to provide with dividends. If you simply treat everyone according to need there is no need for this colossal administrative waste, nor to pay those capitalists that make their money there. Doctors also demand and get far higher pay, as they are working as businesses rather than public servants.
Furthermore, the UK National Health Service is a single buyer for supplies. This means that it gets drugs etc far cheaper than American's do, where there are huge numbers of separate organisations buying. A situation that puts the advantage in the hands of the drug companies when it comes to price negotiation.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me be the first to say the more libertarians that disappear off to this island, never to be seen again, the better.
What people invariably want is a state which has rules enforcing human rights, and little else.
That's not what most people want at all. Most people want roads, education, defense, a framework for business, etc. etc.
It's what Libertarians say they want. Though each wants only the human rights that happen to serve them individually.
We could do away with large swaths of the legal landscape and eliminate large parts of government, both local and federal, if we could just say "do anything you want, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others".
The problem is that huge amounts of what we do infringes on others rights. There's very often a balance between rights of one person and rights of another. That's why an awful lot of those laws were created in the first place.
Google's more of an intensive care bed. Where they stick a probe into your every orifice.
That doesn't explain it at all. He's a liar. And I rather thought you'd go along with it.
You graph proves one thing: The fact that the temperatures have been stable for 14 years doesn't prove GW has stopped.
Bingo.
I just did. And I conclude you don't realise when you are being lied to.
The paper divides research into 8 categories.
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
(3) Implicit endorsement
(4a) No position (4b) Uncertain
(5) Implicit rejection
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification
The paper itself, reasonably compares 1-3 against 5-7.
Your denialist blog compares 1 against 5-7.
i.e. it excludes "Explicit endorsement without qualification", but includes "Explicit rejection without quantification
and it excludes "Implicit endorsement" whilst including "Implicit rejection".
Are you prepared to accept that your blog link is a lie, or are you going to join in the lie?
Superwiz, my post to you was impolite and unfair, I apologise. I'm afraid I get so many blowhards here arguing with me, I mistook you for one, and clearly you're not. Likewise with the reading of the paper bit, I'd hadn't realised the person I was responding to in the thread had changed.
Also, I did err when I said "33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW". In my head I knew it was 66/33 the other way. It just didn't come out of my fingers that way.
Until Renaissance there was no concept of a scientist.
Sure. That's why I introduced the term scholars, so I could include intelligent opinion all the way back to the ancient world. But then I brought it back to scientists, because even if there had been a pre-scientific-method consensus, it wouldn't be an equivalent to a consensus of scientists today.
Back to the topic in hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with the way the paper covered the 66% that didn't express an opinion. But rather than repeat why here, I'll just point you to an earlier message.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3760341&cid=43761331
I've got some tin foil stored in a steel tin.
So you can extrapolate this curve and deduce the temperature in 1000 years will be 354F
It's not intended to. But it does show your comments:
"global warming stopped about 13 years ago" and
"global warming seems to be in a pause" are complete bullshit.
Interesting. I wondered why Photoshop took so long to start up. I wonder which of the many probably pointless plugins this is.
I sincierly doubt that there is an issue where 1000 Americans can be of one voice.
Where did you get the impression that the vote was 100% in favour of a ban?
Printers are sold with an embedded chip that prevents the printing of currency.
I've never heard of that, and it seems unlikely. Anyone have any definite info?
Not that which link I got it from really changes anything. Please note that I am not saying they did not look at 2/3 of the papers, only that they ignored 2/3 when calculating a 97% consensus. Or if you don't like "ignored", perhaps "did not include in the calculations" would work better for you.
It rather does matter where that data came from. As given that the figures and calculation originally come from the paper itself, it cannot be so that they ignored it, nor that they didn't include it in calculations.
Please note also that I am not automatically jumping to the conclusion that there is a sinister reason for not including them in the calculations. There is probably a really good reason.
Sure there is, and it's really obvious if you look at the paper. The 12,000 papers are the results of a search form key terms such as "global warming" in the various scientific paper databases. Of course there are many papers that use those words without actually setting out to come to a conclusion on whether there is AGW. For example, a study of honey-bees might make mention of global warming, without having anything to say about whether humans cause it.
It's the equivalent of putting a search term in to Google. Most of the results won't be relevant.
Nevertheless, as you would expect, the authors were completely transparent, and included all data, including a column of calculations based on the total 12,000 right alongside the filtered 4,000.
To say they ignored or didn't include these papers in calculations, isn't merely wrong, it's insulting. And apparently you did so without even looking at the paper you criticise. That's why I was condescending. Because what you wrote deserved it.
You only have to admit your defeat once.
You are retarded. (ad hominem)
Yes, indeed it is. I accept your admission of defeat.
This chart shows your repeated claim to be bullshit.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
The point is that "progressives" and "liberal" political positions are based on spreading fear and scare tactics: fear of environmental disaster, fear of financial ruin, fear of being out of work without support, fear of getting sick without health insurance, fear of losing one's home, etc. That's not hyperbole, it's fact.
It's not fact. There's not a mainstream leftwing party in the world that's running of the platform "Vote for us, or coastal cities will get flooded, there will be mass starvation and wars, bankers will rob you blind, and gunmen will kill your children in mass shootings!"
What you do see, especially here on Slashdot, is left-wingers supporting the science.
"Earth is flat" was a consensus opinion.
No, that's a myth. There was never a consensus of flat-earthers amongst scholars, even religious ones, let alone a consensus of scientists. Scientists who have expressed an opinion on the the shape of the earth have always said it has a spherical nature.
http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf
The sin of belief without data is yours, superwiz. Your belief system is based on what you want to believe, not what is.
Oh, and TFA DOES NOT say what comrade soulskill put up there. 97% of the papers DID NOT claim AGW. Only 32.6% of the papers did.
If you'd actually read the paper you link to, you'd know why 33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW. It's because to get their corpus they simply searched for papers with certain key terms such as "global warming". Now that doesn't necessarily get you a paper that is aimed at the question of AGW, simply one that mentions it. It's unsurprising that papers that are not intended to answer the question of whether there is AGW do not do so. They have to be manually filtered down to those that address that question.
Weak. You're so very weak, Matthew.
Have you got an argument for why it's not pathetic to shoot the messenger? No.
Saying climate change is real because 97% of scientists agree is a classic appeal to authority.
So all you need to do is find a quote and a link that says that, here in this thread.
Also you have misused "non-sequitur". A non-sequitur is an argument that makes an inappropriate logical deduction.
No. "non-sequiteur" is Latin for "it does not follow". No more and no less. You looked up the phrase in a list of logical errors. I used it in the classic sense, that what you said did not follow from the conversation that went before. That is a perfect and more common usage than the one you found. There's a gap in your knowledge, not mine.
"Vote for us, or coastal cities will get flooded, there will be mass starvation and wars, bankers will rob you blind, and gunmen will kill your children in mass shootings!"
Conservatives also are prone to making quotes and statistics up, rather than dealing in facts. And to think hyperbole is an actual argument.
They're really not very rational people.
You're missing the point.
Not really. It's just that I've heard your point before, and I'm making a different one. I'm not saying that science disproves god(s). My point is that religions frame their myths in a way that says that they are outside science. That doesn't mean that rational people have to go along with it. Rational people don't believe myths as if they are reality. We know how these myths came about. We know they contradict each other, and we know why.
You say that Father Christmas and fairies are testable hypotheses. But they are no more so than gods. Just because you find some parents who admit to supplying their kids with christmas presents, doesn't mean that there aren't other kids that get theirs from Father Christmas. And you could put as many sensors around a chimney as you like, FC won't register on them because he's magical.
And fairies of course are invisible to people that don't believe them, so you can test those either. You just have to take people's word for them. And believe. And wish upon a star.
Anyone who believes these things isn't rational when they do so. Yet they may be functioning scientists. And that's why I marvel at the brain's ability to hold both rational thought and irrational thought at the same time.
Likewise, TFA mentions that 11,994 papers were included in the survey, but that they arrived at the 97% value by looking at just the 4000-plus papers that took a position on the cause of climate change. Or put another way, they ignored nearly 2/3 of all the papers when calculating that 97%.
But they didn't ignore them, did they. Because when you went to the paper, you instantly found table 3 with columns for both "all papers" and "that expressed a position". That's where you got your 2/3rds from. You can't say they ignored it when you got the figure from the published paper.
I am saying that that isn't a logical argument of why it's true. Doing so is actually a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority".
And what you've done there is a non-sequiteur. In the thread that you posted, no one has done that.
The US also has several times the population spread out over a much greater area. This means more doctors serving small isolated communities. That's going to cost more.
Also, and I could be entirely wrong on this, but the US is a very litigious culture. Medical expenses will continue to rise as people file malpractice suits. What other countries face similar problems?
Why are you missing out the obvious differences?
America has medical insurance companies which have employees to pay, and shareholders to provide with dividends. If you simply treat everyone according to need there is no need for this colossal administrative waste, nor to pay those capitalists that make their money there. Doctors also demand and get far higher pay, as they are working as businesses rather than public servants.
Furthermore, the UK National Health Service is a single buyer for supplies. This means that it gets drugs etc far cheaper than American's do, where there are huge numbers of separate organisations buying. A situation that puts the advantage in the hands of the drug companies when it comes to price negotiation.