Balkan states are member of NATO now. If they are not defended, that would break the alliance (because NATO has never been tested as a defensive alliance and it fail its first test). Ukraine should be defended as a matter of principle. If Russia keeps it, it will permanently transform the Russian society into an expansionist military dictatorship. It's war now or surrender later. There are no good choices left.
Europe should not be boycotting Russia. They should enter into an open military conflict. If they don't, Russia will steam roll over them. Russia has very clearly demonstrated that they will take by force what they can't take through bribery. Who says they would stop in Eastern Europe this time? The only reason they stopped in Eastern Europe last time was the Allied armies in the West. If this aggression is not checked, Hitler's war will look like a dress rehearsal compared to what Russia is about to pull off.
The Russian Federation is about 20 years old. It is notRussia. It's a new country which has just chosen a new path for itself. If you live in Russia, I am sorry. You have just become a citizen of Hitler's wet dream.
We all wish that US would help Ukraine with weapons and support. Ukraine is a clear victim of an unprovoked Russian aggression. Europe should not be declaring sanctions. Europe should be declaring open war to protect Ukraine from Russia, which has clearly abandoned even its own laws, and which is now ruled by the military command rather than a civilian leadership.
Ukraine is Russia's Austria (to continue with the appropriate analogy between Putin and Hitler). Even Ukrainian language is as similar to Russian as Austria's German is to Germany's German.
What the fuck are you talking about? This myth that Russia keeps trying to push that there are Nazis in Ukraine is only there to deflect Russian attention away from the fact that Putin's policies mirror Hitler's policies almost to the letter. Ukrainian President was elected by 53% of the vote after overthrowing the former President who was clearly a Russian puppet. Russia is taking by force what it couldn't take through bribes.
Ukraine is not Georgia. It's a country of 50 million people (to Russia's 150 million). Georgia is 3 million people, so it took much less time to invade it. Also tanks are not long-range vehicles (such as trucks, for example). They need constant maintenance.
Putin asked Russian parliament to withdraw its authorization of use of military forces on Ukrainian territory. And the parliament accommodated the request. So legally, there is no Russian troops in Ukraine. These must all be "self-defense" units. Oh, and if anyone in the UN believes that, I would be happy to show them a bridge that they can buy about 2-3 miles south of the UN building.
Btw, very few religious fanatics realize that they are fanatics. But the outsiders can tell right away. No scientific theory (no, even the theory of evolution) inspires its supporters to get nasty. And yet AGW does. I know, you have very, very good reasons (frustration at this and that) and I am being dismissive and patronizing and such... But you can't separate a religion from its followers. And AGW camp operates as a religion. They most definitely do NOT follow the scientific method. So they are not scientists. They most definitely do make visceral attacks against those who question them.
I suppose nature abhors a vacuum. And when we created a state in which religion was separated from the state, a new type of belief system had to be invented to justify ever-increasing powers of the state. I am not saying it was planned. Only that nature abhors a vacuum and the institutional marriage of church and state has always been a part of the power structures and of the human condition.
Nate Silver's website (five thirty eight) published an article from an AGW supporter who wanted to put statistical context on the claims of fiscal damages resulting from effects which are purported to result from AGW. The article basically came said something along the lines of "there is more stuff around so there is more stuff that gets destroyed so fiscal measurements need to be correlated to the increases in present value." Mann came out blasting saying that the article didn't account for 4 variables. But the author of the article already published previous papers which did account for these variables. This followed by Silver himself getting attacked for his previous (quality) research and various concerted efforts to smear his name. He ended up commissioning (!!!!) a rebuttal to the article his website published because of the flurry of attacks in his direction.
Oh, and since you really don't see that the effort is concerted, I guess you are tone deaf. Nice try with the conspiracy claim, btw. But if this rises to the level of conspiracy theory, you can make the same claim of any political campaign. It's coordinated spread of a message. It's not really done in secret, so it doesn't rise to the level of conspiracy. They are pretty obvious (not to you because we already established that you are blindsided on this issue).
Dyson was not wrong on facts. He did ask relevant questions, but most importantly he suggest the obvious solution to release of carbon which would mean that the whole topic is irrelevant (because if the problem exists it would be easily fixable). His career could not be threatened because he is a revered figure. But he has been marginalized ever since. The moment the AGW people tried as much as question Dyson (and every single one of the so-called climate "scientists" could not hold a candle to Dyson's level of achievement), the whole movement became questionable. Attacking him was the straw that broke the camel's back. The AGW became a religion when they did that.
Not going to respond to blabber about fossil fuels industry. Of course, they would be the only ones sponsoring this research. Governments would not issue grants to study something which undermines their claims of need for more taxes. This is like arguing that marijuana is dangerous because no study shows otherwise (because anyone trying to attempt such a study would have their funding pulled). This is why I didn't want to have this argument. All these points have been beaten to death. And yet you keep repeating arguments which have been refuted long ago. So what incentive do I have to keep doing this? You think YOUR claims are somehow more superior than every other religious nut's? I don't.
I am curious though. You can't really be that oblivious to the pernicious effect of people such as yourself. There is no way you live in such a bubble that you don't get the full effect of branding skeptics as "deniers". No one can be that tone deaf. You are just trolling, aren't you?
It's entirely possible that a self-selected group does contain all the experts on something; does that make them dishonest?
Only if they are hostile to anyone questioning them (as AGW camp is). The point which you yourself so eloquently demonstrate by this
Last time I asked for a name of somebody "dragged through the mud", I was given the name of somebody who didn't get his paper published in a particular journal, and got butthurt about it.
use of a jailhouse metaphor in reference to a scientist. A scientist whose name you don't mention despite the fact that you yourself insist on specifics.
I listed 2 names which I can recall just off the top of my head. Little research would show many more
Why would that be a rebuttal? The money is still earned on territory outside of the US. It's invested outside of the US. Why should US collect taxes on non-US activities?
Now, if some scientist comes up with something that overthrows a major part of a field of science, that scientist is going to be famous, so there's a big incentive to refute AGW if possible.
This idiotic sophism has been so often refuted, that any attempt to do so again seems futile. In fact, if I were in a fouler mood, it would elicit the well-deserve soup of expletives in your direction. But hey, I am not there yet.
So once again, any self-selected group cannot be considered honest if they are not open to criticism or introspection from outside experts. The AGW camp is just such a group. If you are one of them, you are a "peer". If you are a renowned world-expert on a subject on which these "peers" make statements, but you yourself are not an expert on their entire subject, when you ask questions on the field of your expertise, they brand you a denier, bring out the tar and feathers and drag your name through the mud. So not only are they not open to any outside criticism, they, under the threat of destroying people's careers, actively discourage any outside experts from questioning their "findings."
I am glad we've covered that so that the next rabid dog foaming at the mouth, because his favorite politicians or celebrities told him to support AGW, can repeat this fallacy again.
Something like 97% of peer-reviewed papers agree with AGW, which suggests that 3% don't, so any scientists in the field who disagree can still publish.
3%? As in outside of, what is it, 2.2 sigma? That sounds like a statistical error that is to be expected in any self-selection group.
The moment someone asks for "peer-reviewed" rebuttal is the moment I know they either don't know what they are talking about or they are vicious liars. You can't have "peer-review" standard in the situation in which the whole field is accused of fraud. We don't ask for peer-review of drug dealing charges by other drug dealers. In this situation the field has to stand up to a higher standard than peer-review. It has to withstand the critical review. The field is accused of being incestuous (in the sense of being self-selecting by rejecting everyone who is not a fawning supporter). This self-selecting membership makes peer-review irrelevant. You get to pick your peers. You don't get to pick who is qualified to be your critics.
Many people like the trolls. It's like watching bedlam as a form of circus. What I would appreciate is mandatory country of origin attach to each post though (based on geo location).
You should end with QED. Oh, wait, Q.E.D. Just as, I am sure, you always punctuate your dates as "B.C." because "BC" would be lame. Yes, the difference between the two parties is not as stark as the difference between US and other countries. But the subtle difference is what makes THE difference. And yes, the extreme pro-Communist, pro-Slavery, anti-human position that is held by the modern Democratic party is too extreme for my tastes. I am very, very well-educated and supremely well-informed. Ie, you lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Balkan states are member of NATO now. If they are not defended, that would break the alliance (because NATO has never been tested as a defensive alliance and it fail its first test). Ukraine should be defended as a matter of principle. If Russia keeps it, it will permanently transform the Russian society into an expansionist military dictatorship. It's war now or surrender later. There are no good choices left.
Europe should not be boycotting Russia. They should enter into an open military conflict. If they don't, Russia will steam roll over them. Russia has very clearly demonstrated that they will take by force what they can't take through bribery. Who says they would stop in Eastern Europe this time? The only reason they stopped in Eastern Europe last time was the Allied armies in the West. If this aggression is not checked, Hitler's war will look like a dress rehearsal compared to what Russia is about to pull off.
The Russian Federation is about 20 years old. It is not Russia. It's a new country which has just chosen a new path for itself. If you live in Russia, I am sorry. You have just become a citizen of Hitler's wet dream.
The current President of Ukraine was elected with 53% of the vote. Enough said.
Something on the order of 2000 civilians have already died as a direct result of the Russia's campaign of terror in Ukraine.
We all wish that US would help Ukraine with weapons and support. Ukraine is a clear victim of an unprovoked Russian aggression. Europe should not be declaring sanctions. Europe should be declaring open war to protect Ukraine from Russia, which has clearly abandoned even its own laws, and which is now ruled by the military command rather than a civilian leadership.
Facts are facts. And stop spreading the Russian National Socialist propaganda.
Ukraine is Russia's Austria (to continue with the appropriate analogy between Putin and Hitler). Even Ukrainian language is as similar to Russian as Austria's German is to Germany's German.
What the fuck are you talking about? This myth that Russia keeps trying to push that there are Nazis in Ukraine is only there to deflect Russian attention away from the fact that Putin's policies mirror Hitler's policies almost to the letter. Ukrainian President was elected by 53% of the vote after overthrowing the former President who was clearly a Russian puppet. Russia is taking by force what it couldn't take through bribes.
Ukraine is not Georgia. It's a country of 50 million people (to Russia's 150 million). Georgia is 3 million people, so it took much less time to invade it. Also tanks are not long-range vehicles (such as trucks, for example). They need constant maintenance.
Putin asked Russian parliament to withdraw its authorization of use of military forces on Ukrainian territory. And the parliament accommodated the request. So legally, there is no Russian troops in Ukraine. These must all be "self-defense" units. Oh, and if anyone in the UN believes that, I would be happy to show them a bridge that they can buy about 2-3 miles south of the UN building.
Got quotes from climate scientists calling any of these people a "denier"?
3rd reply to the same post, but here it is from Mann himself (when talking about Nate Silver):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/nate-silver-climate-change_b_1909482.html
Btw, very few religious fanatics realize that they are fanatics. But the outsiders can tell right away. No scientific theory (no, even the theory of evolution) inspires its supporters to get nasty. And yet AGW does. I know, you have very, very good reasons (frustration at this and that) and I am being dismissive and patronizing and such... But you can't separate a religion from its followers. And AGW camp operates as a religion. They most definitely do NOT follow the scientific method. So they are not scientists. They most definitely do make visceral attacks against those who question them.
I suppose nature abhors a vacuum. And when we created a state in which religion was separated from the state, a new type of belief system had to be invented to justify ever-increasing powers of the state. I am not saying it was planned. Only that nature abhors a vacuum and the institutional marriage of church and state has always been a part of the power structures and of the human condition.
Nate Silver's website (five thirty eight) published an article from an AGW supporter who wanted to put statistical context on the claims of fiscal damages resulting from effects which are purported to result from AGW. The article basically came said something along the lines of "there is more stuff around so there is more stuff that gets destroyed so fiscal measurements need to be correlated to the increases in present value." Mann came out blasting saying that the article didn't account for 4 variables. But the author of the article already published previous papers which did account for these variables. This followed by Silver himself getting attacked for his previous (quality) research and various concerted efforts to smear his name. He ended up commissioning (!!!!) a rebuttal to the article his website published because of the flurry of attacks in his direction.
Oh, and since you really don't see that the effort is concerted, I guess you are tone deaf. Nice try with the conspiracy claim, btw. But if this rises to the level of conspiracy theory, you can make the same claim of any political campaign. It's coordinated spread of a message. It's not really done in secret, so it doesn't rise to the level of conspiracy. They are pretty obvious (not to you because we already established that you are blindsided on this issue).
Dyson was not wrong on facts. He did ask relevant questions, but most importantly he suggest the obvious solution to release of carbon which would mean that the whole topic is irrelevant (because if the problem exists it would be easily fixable). His career could not be threatened because he is a revered figure. But he has been marginalized ever since. The moment the AGW people tried as much as question Dyson (and every single one of the so-called climate "scientists" could not hold a candle to Dyson's level of achievement), the whole movement became questionable. Attacking him was the straw that broke the camel's back. The AGW became a religion when they did that.
Not going to respond to blabber about fossil fuels industry. Of course, they would be the only ones sponsoring this research. Governments would not issue grants to study something which undermines their claims of need for more taxes. This is like arguing that marijuana is dangerous because no study shows otherwise (because anyone trying to attempt such a study would have their funding pulled). This is why I didn't want to have this argument. All these points have been beaten to death. And yet you keep repeating arguments which have been refuted long ago. So what incentive do I have to keep doing this? You think YOUR claims are somehow more superior than every other religious nut's? I don't.
I am curious though. You can't really be that oblivious to the pernicious effect of people such as yourself. There is no way you live in such a bubble that you don't get the full effect of branding skeptics as "deniers". No one can be that tone deaf. You are just trolling, aren't you?
It's entirely possible that a self-selected group does contain all the experts on something; does that make them dishonest?
Only if they are hostile to anyone questioning them (as AGW camp is). The point which you yourself so eloquently demonstrate by this
Last time I asked for a name of somebody "dragged through the mud", I was given the name of somebody who didn't get his paper published in a particular journal, and got butthurt about it.
use of a jailhouse metaphor in reference to a scientist. A scientist whose name you don't mention despite the fact that you yourself insist on specifics.
I listed 2 names which I can recall just off the top of my head. Little research would show many more
Nate Silver
Freeman Dyson
Why would that be a rebuttal? The money is still earned on territory outside of the US. It's invested outside of the US. Why should US collect taxes on non-US activities?
Now, if some scientist comes up with something that overthrows a major part of a field of science, that scientist is going to be famous, so there's a big incentive to refute AGW if possible.
This idiotic sophism has been so often refuted, that any attempt to do so again seems futile. In fact, if I were in a fouler mood, it would elicit the well-deserve soup of expletives in your direction. But hey, I am not there yet.
So once again, any self-selected group cannot be considered honest if they are not open to criticism or introspection from outside experts. The AGW camp is just such a group. If you are one of them, you are a "peer". If you are a renowned world-expert on a subject on which these "peers" make statements, but you yourself are not an expert on their entire subject, when you ask questions on the field of your expertise, they brand you a denier, bring out the tar and feathers and drag your name through the mud. So not only are they not open to any outside criticism, they, under the threat of destroying people's careers, actively discourage any outside experts from questioning their "findings."
This is a classic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... type of logical fallacy.
I am glad we've covered that so that the next rabid dog foaming at the mouth, because his favorite politicians or celebrities told him to support AGW, can repeat this fallacy again.
Something like 97% of peer-reviewed papers agree with AGW, which suggests that 3% don't, so any scientists in the field who disagree can still publish.
3%? As in outside of, what is it, 2.2 sigma? That sounds like a statistical error that is to be expected in any self-selection group.
The moment someone asks for "peer-reviewed" rebuttal is the moment I know they either don't know what they are talking about or they are vicious liars. You can't have "peer-review" standard in the situation in which the whole field is accused of fraud. We don't ask for peer-review of drug dealing charges by other drug dealers. In this situation the field has to stand up to a higher standard than peer-review. It has to withstand the critical review. The field is accused of being incestuous (in the sense of being self-selecting by rejecting everyone who is not a fawning supporter). This self-selecting membership makes peer-review irrelevant. You get to pick your peers. You don't get to pick who is qualified to be your critics.
You can adjust ac's to have very negative modifiers. You'll almost never see them that way.
Many people like the trolls. It's like watching bedlam as a form of circus. What I would appreciate is mandatory country of origin attach to each post though (based on geo location).
You should end with QED. Oh, wait, Q.E.D. Just as, I am sure, you always punctuate your dates as "B.C." because "BC" would be lame. Yes, the difference between the two parties is not as stark as the difference between US and other countries. But the subtle difference is what makes THE difference. And yes, the extreme pro-Communist, pro-Slavery, anti-human position that is held by the modern Democratic party is too extreme for my tastes. I am very, very well-educated and supremely well-informed. Ie, you lose.