“Pielke’s piece is deeply misleading, confirming some of my worst fears that Nate Silver’s new venture may become yet another outlet for misinformation when it comes to the issue of human-caused climate change,” said Michael Mann
Michael Mann is, of course, His Holyness of this anti-scientific cult of scare-everyone-of-AGW-or-else. Of course, he is going to cry "heretic" when gets less than a full and enthusiastic support.
From the update in the article:
"Pielke particularly took issue with Mann’s claim that Pielke “completely ignores technological innovations (sturdier buildings, hurricane-resistant structures, better weather forecasting, etc.)” when analyzing disaster damage and its cause. Pielke said he has considered mitigation data in previous work, but has found through four of his own research papers not mentioned in the FiveThirtyEight article that there were no strong effects on the data."
Wait for some more bull shit calling anyone who doesn't agree with AGW's His Holyness to be called "deniers" (even if, in this case, they are not even sceptical of AGW.. only of its potential economic impact).
Why? Ran of out people to call "deniers"? Yeah, I am really not trolling. Between attacking people for as much as questioning calculations to attacking anyone who doesn't tow the Communist (aka Democratic) party line, do you really wonder why no one rocks the boat anymore in science? Everybody wants to be caught pining for mavericks. No one wants to be caught giving them shelter.
For only $25 extra I can have your certificate of ownership of the beautiful historical landmark, The Brooklyn Bridge, laminated and fire-proofed. You do want to protect your investment, do you not? And if you wish to take ownership in a hurry, we can expedite the legal process for only $50 extra. For a measly $50 you can have the certificate as soon as tomorrow.
Sorry, come again? I would point out that not a whole month ago, a group of armed insurgents committed a coup against the legitimate, democratically-elected Ukrainian government. So exactly what "sovereign state" do you refer to here?
It's not and if you don't know that, then you have failed the shibboleth. The 2nd most important event in the history of The United States was a civil war denying half of the states the right to self-determination; self-determination which they intended to use for the purposes of continuing the practice of slavery, but self-determination nonetheless.
Sorry, come again? I would point out that not a whole month ago, a group of armed insurgents committed a coup against the legitimate, democratically-elected Ukrainian government. So exactly what "sovereign state" do you refer to here?
The one that will holding elections in May and which has had 2 revolutions so far to throw out a Russia-imposed puppet. The one which replaced the said puppet the legal next-in-line to power from his own party. It was a non-completely legal removal of a completely-illegally elected President. Russia can't even have honest elections itself. And it is trying to spread its corrupt influence to its neighbors. It is noble and honorable to defend Ukraine today. Defense of Ukraine is opposition to tyranny, to corruption, to everything worth opposing by anyone who cares to take stand even if they never care to take a stand otherwise. Russia, today, is on the wrong side of history.
Don't forget that Russia is not Soviet Union. The modern state of Russia NEVER owned Crimea. It is only 23 years old. The modern state of Ukraine is also 23 years old. And the modern state of Ukraine has ALWAYS owned Crimea. Don't fall the whole "autonomous region" nomenclature, btw. It's an old Soviet denomination Russia is spattered with "autonomous" regions which are just administrative districts. They have no autonomy from the central government whatsoever. Every state in the US has more autonomy from the Federal government (much more, in fact) than the "autonomy" enjoyed by these "autonomous" regions.
You probably for 150 years, but for 70 of those 150 years (as you pointed out) there was no Russia. There was the totalitarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union. The free countries which were formed when Russia succeeded from the Soviet Union had a new clean slate to chose their new path. They had a chance to built a new future for the sake of their peoples. We now know that Russia decided to give up that chance in order to entertain its maniacal blood-thirsty ambitions. This is just a beginning. Don't kid yourself if you think that you, as a Russian, have gained something. You are a property of the Putin regime. And the regime is hoping to gain more properties in Ukraine. Just because your master is getting new toys, doesn't mean you get to play, too.
It's a typical leftist ploy.. only now it's being by the paragon of the left itself: use a term as its opposite in order to claim confusion when it is used appropriately. Russia is accusing Ukrainians of being Nazi in order to create confusion about their clear Hitler-like invasion; Democrats do it all the time to Republicans (who are not saints, but they are not guilty of everything Democrats do and then accuse Republicans of); Russia had the audacity, for a while, to accuse Ukrainians, who overthrew a Russian puppet in Kiev, too "nationalist". Russia has re-invented itself as a nationalist state. It is not an element of the modern Russian culture. It IS the modern Russian culture. It is nothing but egoism and pride in ethnic heritage. I am sure can find examples of such behavior everywhere in the world. The difference is that Russian pop-culture is entirely and completely nationalism centered... there is nothing else there.
Sorry, what? Are you comparing defending of a sovereign state to staging of an election within an all-of-a-sudden-separatist region in order to justify an invasion? Russia set up a puppet government in Crimea. The "president" who requested Russian troops' presence never got more than 4% of the vote in the local elections. And setting up a base is not the same as taking over a region.. unless you think that Russia was always in charge of Crimea... because it always had a base there.
These clearly are local volunteer defense units. Russia is only trying to protect its citizens in Crimea. It's not setting for a larger invasion and take over of Ukraine. And I, personally, think that $1700 is a very reasonable asking price for such a historic landmark as Brooklyn Bridge.
Ok, as long as you do though. Anyone who thinks that they are being watched (even if they are wrong about it) usually acts differently than when they don't think they are being watched. And when thinking that they are on display, people do behave better towards other human beings. I am not suggesting you believe in the spaghetti monster all of a sudden. I also don't recommend you take heart medication that you don't need. But it helps some people.
Oh, yeah, forgot to mention that the fucked-up fucken ass holes, like you, are also anti-education And just to think! That's actually my pet peeve with lying fucked-up ass holes that subscribe to the leftist philosophies... you know like all the people who subscribe to the leftist philosophies. Well, do kindly eat shit and die.
No, fuck you! Fuck you with a cherry on top. The left is a pro-slavery, pro-crime, pro-mysogeny, anti-science, pro-violence philosophy. Oh, and they are just not open about it. They are lying ass holes. You know... like you.
You are right. We should stay away from politics while discussing ACA (aka "Obamacare"). Because it's not a political discussion. It's a discussion about technology. The headline does, after all, have the word "start-up" in it.
It's not THAT surprising. She is a lawyer and Law Schools tend to beat common sense out of people pretty much the way that firefighter training beats the survival instinct out of people. It's pretty common for a lawyer to insist that a plain English sentence which would not be misinterpreted by anyone (other than a lawyer) has multiple possible meanings. She asked to have a term defined... even though she probably heard it before and probably used it herself. But in an "official" conversation her lawyer training kicked in and she asked to have the term defined "exactly." Lawyers can be that way when they don't rise above their training to learn how to communicate effectively while remaining precise.
Stop using "right wing" as a slur. They are better than the alternative. Better at what you ask? At this point... just better. The left just sucks balls.
In raw numbers? Perhaps, but we have to consider things like inflation and percentage of GDP.
Well, the cut they are talking about is a cut in raw numbers (of dollars allotted to NIH), so doing comparisons in row numbers is apples to apples comparison here. Btw, Reagan was an amateur compare to Obama when it comes to deficit spending. No one has spent money on a scale that even compares to Obama during peace time... not even close... It's really quite unbelievable how bad he is. He spent so much money in his 1st year, they literally ran out of people to whom they could give the money. They "stimulus" funding sitting unclaimed because they funded every wildest fantasy anyone could invent and apply for and still they had half a trillion (that's 500 billion or 500,000 million dollars) sitting unclaimed because no one could figure out what to spend it on.
Tax receipts during say WW2 were much higher, and so was spending.
Yes, spending was much higher during WW2.... on this big ticket item called WORLD WAR 2. You know... the big ticket item which could be cut after the war was over. Are you gonna cut spending on WW2 again now?
Right, except that's not what they did. They didn't invest the money. They paid it in benefits. Investing money produces a return. Paying out benefits does not produce a return. The analogy to banks simply does not hold.
Only if the money you spent was saved. If it was spent on other things (like paying entitlements of other people), then you weren't paying for your retirement. You were paying for retirements of other people. And in that case, and I am sorry to say this because it is very harsh, but any "entitlements" you receive is charity. Because if it wasn't saved (and it wasn't), then it's funded by other people. And just because your house got robbed, you don't get a carte blanche to rob your neighbor's house.
Hate to brake to you, but this was 100% on Democrats. Spending went up. It just didn't go towards NIH funding. And it is the Democrats (the party in power) who decided where the funding went.
Sequester didn't cut spending thought. It only reduced increased in spending... let it sink in.. reduced increases... so increases still happened... just not as large as they would have been without the sequester.
Are you high? US Federal government had the highest tax receipts in history AND the highest deficit in history. Regardless of whether you believe this to be a problem, the cut backs were definitely not the result of some imaginary across-the-board cut backs that you have dreamed up.
Slashdot Mirror
The rate of rise and fall is always highest at the inflection point. And that is the point where the trend reverses itself.
“Pielke’s piece is deeply misleading, confirming some of my worst fears that Nate Silver’s new venture may become yet another outlet for misinformation when it comes to the issue of human-caused climate change,” said Michael Mann
Michael Mann is, of course, His Holyness of this anti-scientific cult of scare-everyone-of-AGW-or-else. Of course, he is going to cry "heretic" when gets less than a full and enthusiastic support.
From the update in the article:
"Pielke particularly took issue with Mann’s claim that Pielke “completely ignores technological innovations (sturdier buildings, hurricane-resistant structures, better weather forecasting, etc.)” when analyzing disaster damage and its cause. Pielke said he has considered mitigation data in previous work, but has found through four of his own research papers not mentioned in the FiveThirtyEight article that there were no strong effects on the data."
Wait for some more bull shit calling anyone who doesn't agree with AGW's His Holyness to be called "deniers" (even if, in this case, they are not even sceptical of AGW.. only of its potential economic impact).
Why? Ran of out people to call "deniers"? Yeah, I am really not trolling. Between attacking people for as much as questioning calculations to attacking anyone who doesn't tow the Communist (aka Democratic) party line, do you really wonder why no one rocks the boat anymore in science? Everybody wants to be caught pining for mavericks. No one wants to be caught giving them shelter.
For only $25 extra I can have your certificate of ownership of the beautiful historical landmark, The Brooklyn Bridge, laminated and fire-proofed. You do want to protect your investment, do you not? And if you wish to take ownership in a hurry, we can expedite the legal process for only $50 extra. For a measly $50 you can have the certificate as soon as tomorrow.
Sorry, come again? I would point out that not a whole month ago, a group of armed insurgents committed a coup against the legitimate, democratically-elected Ukrainian government. So exactly what "sovereign state" do you refer to here?
It's not and if you don't know that, then you have failed the shibboleth. The 2nd most important event in the history of The United States was a civil war denying half of the states the right to self-determination; self-determination which they intended to use for the purposes of continuing the practice of slavery, but self-determination nonetheless.
Sorry, come again? I would point out that not a whole month ago, a group of armed insurgents committed a coup against the legitimate, democratically-elected Ukrainian government. So exactly what "sovereign state" do you refer to here?
The one that will holding elections in May and which has had 2 revolutions so far to throw out a Russia-imposed puppet. The one which replaced the said puppet the legal next-in-line to power from his own party. It was a non-completely legal removal of a completely-illegally elected President. Russia can't even have honest elections itself. And it is trying to spread its corrupt influence to its neighbors. It is noble and honorable to defend Ukraine today. Defense of Ukraine is opposition to tyranny, to corruption, to everything worth opposing by anyone who cares to take stand even if they never care to take a stand otherwise. Russia, today, is on the wrong side of history.
Don't forget that Russia is not Soviet Union. The modern state of Russia NEVER owned Crimea. It is only 23 years old. The modern state of Ukraine is also 23 years old. And the modern state of Ukraine has ALWAYS owned Crimea. Don't fall the whole "autonomous region" nomenclature, btw. It's an old Soviet denomination Russia is spattered with "autonomous" regions which are just administrative districts. They have no autonomy from the central government whatsoever. Every state in the US has more autonomy from the Federal government (much more, in fact) than the "autonomy" enjoyed by these "autonomous" regions.
Crimea belonged to Russia for 100-200 years
You probably for 150 years, but for 70 of those 150 years (as you pointed out) there was no Russia. There was the totalitarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union. The free countries which were formed when Russia succeeded from the Soviet Union had a new clean slate to chose their new path. They had a chance to built a new future for the sake of their peoples. We now know that Russia decided to give up that chance in order to entertain its maniacal blood-thirsty ambitions. This is just a beginning. Don't kid yourself if you think that you, as a Russian, have gained something. You are a property of the Putin regime. And the regime is hoping to gain more properties in Ukraine. Just because your master is getting new toys, doesn't mean you get to play, too.
It's a typical leftist ploy.. only now it's being by the paragon of the left itself: use a term as its opposite in order to claim confusion when it is used appropriately. Russia is accusing Ukrainians of being Nazi in order to create confusion about their clear Hitler-like invasion; Democrats do it all the time to Republicans (who are not saints, but they are not guilty of everything Democrats do and then accuse Republicans of); Russia had the audacity, for a while, to accuse Ukrainians, who overthrew a Russian puppet in Kiev, too "nationalist". Russia has re-invented itself as a nationalist state. It is not an element of the modern Russian culture. It IS the modern Russian culture. It is nothing but egoism and pride in ethnic heritage. I am sure can find examples of such behavior everywhere in the world. The difference is that Russian pop-culture is entirely and completely nationalism centered... there is nothing else there.
Sorry, what? Are you comparing defending of a sovereign state to staging of an election within an all-of-a-sudden-separatist region in order to justify an invasion? Russia set up a puppet government in Crimea. The "president" who requested Russian troops' presence never got more than 4% of the vote in the local elections. And setting up a base is not the same as taking over a region.. unless you think that Russia was always in charge of Crimea... because it always had a base there.
These clearly are local volunteer defense units. Russia is only trying to protect its citizens in Crimea. It's not setting for a larger invasion and take over of Ukraine. And I, personally, think that $1700 is a very reasonable asking price for such a historic landmark as Brooklyn Bridge.
Ok, as long as you do though. Anyone who thinks that they are being watched (even if they are wrong about it) usually acts differently than when they don't think they are being watched. And when thinking that they are on display, people do behave better towards other human beings. I am not suggesting you believe in the spaghetti monster all of a sudden. I also don't recommend you take heart medication that you don't need. But it helps some people.
Oh, yeah, forgot to mention that the fucked-up fucken ass holes, like you, are also anti-education And just to think! That's actually my pet peeve with lying fucked-up ass holes that subscribe to the leftist philosophies... you know like all the people who subscribe to the leftist philosophies. Well, do kindly eat shit and die.
No, fuck you! Fuck you with a cherry on top. The left is a pro-slavery, pro-crime, pro-mysogeny, anti-science, pro-violence philosophy. Oh, and they are just not open about it. They are lying ass holes. You know... like you.
You are right. We should stay away from politics while discussing ACA (aka "Obamacare"). Because it's not a political discussion. It's a discussion about technology. The headline does, after all, have the word "start-up" in it.
Another Democrat talking. Hide your wallet.
It's not THAT surprising. She is a lawyer and Law Schools tend to beat common sense out of people pretty much the way that firefighter training beats the survival instinct out of people. It's pretty common for a lawyer to insist that a plain English sentence which would not be misinterpreted by anyone (other than a lawyer) has multiple possible meanings. She asked to have a term defined... even though she probably heard it before and probably used it herself. But in an "official" conversation her lawyer training kicked in and she asked to have the term defined "exactly." Lawyers can be that way when they don't rise above their training to learn how to communicate effectively while remaining precise.
Stop using "right wing" as a slur. They are better than the alternative. Better at what you ask? At this point... just better. The left just sucks balls.
In raw numbers? Perhaps, but we have to consider things like inflation and percentage of GDP.
Well, the cut they are talking about is a cut in raw numbers (of dollars allotted to NIH), so doing comparisons in row numbers is apples to apples comparison here. Btw, Reagan was an amateur compare to Obama when it comes to deficit spending. No one has spent money on a scale that even compares to Obama during peace time... not even close... It's really quite unbelievable how bad he is. He spent so much money in his 1st year, they literally ran out of people to whom they could give the money. They "stimulus" funding sitting unclaimed because they funded every wildest fantasy anyone could invent and apply for and still they had half a trillion (that's 500 billion or 500,000 million dollars) sitting unclaimed because no one could figure out what to spend it on.
Tax receipts during say WW2 were much higher, and so was spending.
Yes, spending was much higher during WW2.... on this big ticket item called WORLD WAR 2. You know... the big ticket item which could be cut after the war was over. Are you gonna cut spending on WW2 again now?
Right, except that's not what they did. They didn't invest the money. They paid it in benefits. Investing money produces a return. Paying out benefits does not produce a return. The analogy to banks simply does not hold.
Only if the money you spent was saved. If it was spent on other things (like paying entitlements of other people), then you weren't paying for your retirement. You were paying for retirements of other people. And in that case, and I am sorry to say this because it is very harsh, but any "entitlements" you receive is charity. Because if it wasn't saved (and it wasn't), then it's funded by other people. And just because your house got robbed, you don't get a carte blanche to rob your neighbor's house.
Hate to brake to you, but this was 100% on Democrats. Spending went up. It just didn't go towards NIH funding. And it is the Democrats (the party in power) who decided where the funding went.
Sequester didn't cut spending thought. It only reduced increased in spending... let it sink in.. reduced increases... so increases still happened... just not as large as they would have been without the sequester.
Are you high? US Federal government had the highest tax receipts in history AND the highest deficit in history. Regardless of whether you believe this to be a problem, the cut backs were definitely not the result of some imaginary across-the-board cut backs that you have dreamed up.