I again ask you what your complaint is. Science is still being done on climate change however given overwhelming evidence, no one focuses on the topic of whether humans are causing climate change. Just like no one does any research on whether mass causes gravity. It also seems that you don't know a lot about this subject but yet someone you feel qualified to throw your opinion around about it.
Every single post where you railed against scientists being political. You don't say that the action being proposed isn't correct or right. You disagree with the fact the scientists made it? It's hard to fathom what your actual complaint it.
What assertions do you think I'm making? I've not said that I think the current IPCC models are wrong, just that the work should continue because there is a lot that isn't yet known.
The flaw in your logic is that you maintain we don't know everything there we don't know enough to take a course of action. Again we don't know everything about gravity. But we know enough to launch space vehicles. We didn't know all the effects of lead in gasoline until decades after it was banned but we knew enough to remove it.
CERN investigated (and may still be doing so) the effects of cosmic rays on climate. I haven't paid a lot of attention to that work in the last few years - if they have concluded that there is no significant impact, that checks off one more unknown. Work should continue to see what else if anything is missing in the models.
My point is that CERN didn't overturn or change the conclusions of the IPCC. If anything they strengthened them. Again, you pointing to CERN only shows that you may not know enough not the IPCC.
There was a nature paper a couple of years back that didn't show the expected isotope ratio in atmospheric CO2, indicating that the turnover rate with the biosystem is faster than had been thought - that is important information to put in the models.
And can you point to where this has overturned any conclusion of the IPCC?
Sure, people have misused all sorts of arguments in the past. I"m arguing for the importance of continued research because there are a lot of unknowns. That is separate from climate POLICY which should (of course) be based on the best information we have now. (anything else is silly - why would you based policy on anything other than the best information??).
Again you are against the policy of limiting emissions and reversal? Please describe what best information is being left out. Or is this another talking point?
Somehow my argument that we don't know everything about climate is being interpreted as our not knowing enough to guide policy. I've never said or implied that.
No your argument mirrors that of Big Tobacco and leaded gasoline manufacturers of the past: Because we don't know EVERYTHING about climate change thus we shouldn't do anything about it. Delay, delay, and delay some more is one of the tactics of deniers.
To which I counter: We don't know everything about gravity. That hasn't stopped physicists from studying the universe or NASA from launching people into outer space or sending probes.
Indeed, publicizing the results would be called for. Suggesting legislation (including a ban) would not.
Er? The results have been publicized and in the case of lead in gasoline, there was a ban. Or do you prefer to have lead contaminating everywhere you live?
So it is completely natural for people opposed to a policy to look very closely at those who provided the scientific data. Think how many of us cast doubts on industry paid research conducted by real scientists. We think we know the motivation of the scientist, and thus we doubt their science.
So to be clear on the one hand you have data from thousands of scientists working in multiple fields that conclude we are altering the environment with our CO2 emissions. But you doubt them because of their "motivations"? What motivations are you insinuating?
The only way to avoid this is for scientists to recuse themselves from policy discussions. Of course this is difficult, as they are among the best informed. But to do otherwise is to compromise their ability to provide data that is perceived as unbiased.
The policy decision from scientists have been to pollute less and look for ways to reverse the change. How is that in any way controversial?
For example, look at the American CBO, which provides estimates about policy costs to the American government. They are prevented from making any policy comments at all (including having to have their estimates take into account elements that everyone knows will never be present but the politicians put in their to make proposals look credible). Why aren't they allowed to inject common-sense into the discussion, given it would make estimates more informative? Because doing so would jeopardize their ability to be seen as unbiased and in the end would render this very valuable data source completely useless.
What policy decisions do you disagree with?
Much of the reason that they've been branded as liberal is some scientists have (for understandable reason) been loudly advocating for policy that is in line with many standard liberal held policies. And by advocating for policy, they've caused their actual research to be cast into doubt.
So you are saying is that what they advocate is in line with liberal policies, therefore they must be liberal. That's faulty reasoning. That's like saying financial planners advocate conservative approaches to money management (especially for those nearing retirement) must therefore be conservatives.
Or let me put it another way. If you believe that literally the fate of mankind is at stake, what sort of monster would you have to be to not twist your research to fit whatever is necessary to push mankind into making a decision that it must make. Now, I don't believe that scientists are fudging data, but by advocating policy along with apocalyptic messaging, they've made it easier for people to believe that they might.
Please show me where this has actually happened. Also you seem to think that no one in the field of science would ever look at another scientists' data or read their papers or question their results. From what I know about scientists is that these are the same people who are willing to argue endlessly whether or not a hyphen should be in a name. Yet they are willing to accept fraud.
The main reason I tend to listen to scientists is the fact that scientists are skeptics and don't "trust" other scientists. The vast scientific community did not believe or trust Einstein when he proposed General Relativity. It took a solar eclipse before physicist began to think that General Relativity might be right.
If scientists had held off advocating policy, I think we'd have less proposed action (those scientists pushed AGW into the public consciousness), but less dispute about the actual science itself. I'd far rather have had an active po
I'm arguing that science provides information as input to policy, but science does not itself form policy.
Again, the science says we are slowly altering if not poisoning the environment. What should be the policy then? My brilliant idea would be to slow the change and look for a way to reverse it.
Science can tell you that smoking increases your chance of dying of cancer, but it has no place deciding that cigarettes should be illegal.
While you can smoke in your own home and not affect anyone else, emitting more greenhouse gases affects everyone. That's the difference. Limiting smoking in public places has been curtailed as a matter of policy because of the science.
The best science (the IPCC report in my opinion) indicates that human CO2 emission is causing significant environmental changes with large economic and other costs. That is as far as science goes. It can't say what we should do - it only gives options.
So let me understand you correctly: You agree the CO2 emissions are causing significant damage but you disagree what we should do about it? I'm no rocket scientist but reducing CO2 emissions to start and looking for ways to reverse the change ought to be course of action. Also any course of action should be modeled and monitored to see the effectiveness. If only we had agencies that could monitor atmospheric conditions and perhaps create the instruments we need for that monitoring. Oh wait! We do!
You really don't want scientists setting policy. That isn't their job.
The policy that has been proposed is we should pollute less. Why are you against that?
The way I see it, policy should be based on the best available science, but that is different from saying that science sets policy.
The problem is that you are arguing based on your viewpoint of the science and not the best available science. Please describe what "best available science" is not being considered. This is a tactic that tobacco makers have previously used. The best available science has long held that smoking is bad for you for decades but the Big Tobacco has long insisted that the best available science was being ignored.
If we can't elect politicians who are able to understand the scientific input and act on it, the that is our mistake.
We don't elect the head of NASA. We don't elect many positions in government as they are appointed. We can however voice opinions and objections to position postings.
The answer is clearly no. No part of atmospheric science has anything to do with engineering. Just like airlines don't build their own planes. Just like the US military doesn't manufacture their bombers and fighters.
I don't know if NASA just provides launch services them (as it does for some) or actually builds the instruments.
Woah, woah, woah. So what you are saying is that you didn't already know this answer but you feel like you can adequately suggest a course of action based on your ignorance of the subject matter?
My only point is that its OK to separate NOAA and NASA functions as long as the functions are still funded and done.
Having established that you didn't research the simple question of what NASA does and NOAA does with weather satellites, maybe you should research your point about "separating" NOAA and NASA functions before you post them again.
Each person should individually and voluntarily stop, because it's the sensible thing to do.
That wasn't the question posed by the OP. If CO2 emission are doing harm to the environment, are you arguing that we shouldn't do something about it?
People should be restricted as to where and when they can do it, i.e. 18 years or older, not in restaurants or schools. If you think that's a question science can answer you don't understand what science is.
Except that climate change doesn't affect you or me individually or separately if we choose to do it. It affects us all. I don't know where you live but smoking is no longer allowed in public places like bars because it affects the public. If CO2 emissions are affecting us all, then what is your logic for not reducing emissions?
[sarcasm]Sure and while NOAA is at it, they can just outsource building those satellites as well. Also NOAA is full of people that have tons of experience administrating such a project. NOAA has unlimited budgets for all of that.[/sarcasm]
OR
NASA has a larger important that you're ever willing to admit.
Bahahaha. You mean the ">CERN project that reinforces and refines the current models of climate change?
Future global climate projections have been put on more solid empirical ground, thanks to new measurements of the production rates of atmospheric aerosol particles by CERN’s Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment.
In other words, you are referring to a project that goes only to disprove your assertions.
Come on, editors. Wtf? How is that relevant or helpful to the conversation? Are the people posting really that partisan? What are the new administrator's goals for the agency? Does he have a vision that includes manned space missions? Is he going to burn the agency to the ground? I can't tell. All I know is the poster liked Obama and doesn't like Trump which probably shouldn't be in the summary at all.
Well it seems to be indicative of this administration to post people that have a strong bias against the very agencies that they are supposed to lead. For example
Education secretary that is very much against public education
head of the EPA who is against protecting the environment
Energy secretary who once said that the government should dismantle the Dept of Energy
Chariman of the FCC who doesn't seem to champion protecting communication.
So this is like appointing some to head Transportation who only takes taxis and doesn't have a Driver's License?
It's like appointing someone as Transportation Secretary who thinks that people shouldn't drive at all and take taxis. Just like this administration appointed someone in charge of education who never went to public school nor sent her children to public school and has constantly shown she has no idea how public schools work.
Seriously, being an administrator has nothing to do with actual Science. It's about people, budgets, and organization. NASA has tons of real scientist in middle management position to act as advisors.
It's one thing not to have specific science experience in a post but when you're on record denying science it's troubling. Would you like the next Surgeon General who is not a medical doctor but also someone who denies that smoking can cause cancer?
Any Real Scientist who wants to be in management probably isn't really interested in being a Scientist anymore because managers manage, they don't do the work.
That's an idiotic thing to say. That's like saying no Department Chair at any University is a REAL scientist. You seem to think that all scientists are 100% worker bees and never want to manage or lead.
Complaining about this like complaining that your accountant isn't in your business.
No it's like complaining that our head of Accounting doesn't have an accounting degree. Or that our CFO doesn't have either a finance degree or an accounting degree. And that person has said that we don't have to be accurate with our financial numbers.
So you think we know everything we need to know about climate science and don't need to study it further? If not, then its not "settled".
No one but you has ever said we "know everything we need to know about climate science". Gravity is settled as a fundamental force of nature. We still study it as there is still some knowledge that is unknown.
Otherwise you have to clarify what you think is settled? That humans cause climate change - of course - but the question is how much and the range of predictions from the IPCC is large.
I would think that modeling and monitoring the effectiveness of any solutions that are proposed and implemented would need to be done. Unless you think that any action needs not to be checked in any form.
BTW - at the end of the last ice age the Arctic *did* warm all by itself - or really in response to the variations in the earths tilt and orbit. Climate does change without human action. The question is the extent to which human action effect things. The answer looks like human effects have been quite large relative to other changes on the scale of the last century or two, but it is extremely complex to model.
And all of this is an irrelevant point brought on by deniers to muddle the question. Historically people have died from disease in the past. Thus we have no reason why we need to study diseases like cancer in the future. That's the sum of your argument.
Also I think that if we want people to respect / believe science, then science needs to be separate from politics. It needs to not take sides, but to provide politically unbiased information for people to use to set policy.
So if you have scientific information that the humans are slowly poisoning itself with lead coming from gasoline, for example, you wouldn't try to raise the alarm to have lead removed as an additive in gasoline?
One of the largest objections to current climate science is the claim that it has a liberal bias. We need to be very careful not to let that be true. Unfortunately science isn't immune to political pressure - I see it even in the non-controversial things that I work on. It takes extreme vigilance to protect science from political pressure (from either side) on the politically sensitive issues.
Where do you think that claim came from? Conservatives, namely those who stand to lose should people use less oil.
But let's look at the scientists who are arguing for climate change. This includes the vast majority of scientists. They represent virtually every country on the planet. They represent males and females of different age groups. They represent different ethnic populations and speak dozens of languages. Yet you've branded them as "liberal". Have you actually thought about that? Statistically that seems highly unlikely.
Because if your world it's either 100% policy decision or it's 100% science question in a strict binary sense. Some issues occupy multiple areas. For example smoking is a policy decision and a health question at the same time.
Science can tell us what will happen in different scenarios, but it can't tell us what we SHOULD do about it because science says nothing about what our goals are. There world will be different under different policies, but its not the job of science to tell us which of those futures are better.
Well if our goals are survival for ourselves and the planet, you'd think that you might want to get scientists involved.
Should we kill or sterilize everyone with genetic defects? Science will say that course of action will very gradually decrease the number of defects in the population, and the Nazis used this as an argument that we SHOULD take that action.
Ahhh. The eugenics fallacy. See here is where your understanding of science is extremely poor. Everyone in the world has genetic defects. EVERYONE. They are called mutations. Some mutations are beneficial and some are benign. If you argue for the murder due to genetic defects, you should volunteer to be first as a matter of principle.
Science isn't a yes / no. Certainly we don't completely understand climate.
No but certain questions are yes and no. For example we don't understand gravity completely but it's "settled" that mass causes gravity and not pixie dust. That doesn't mean that science stops looking at gravity in detail.
Should we we reduce CO2 emissions? That isn't a "science" question, it is a political question that takes (or should take) as inputs climate models and economic models.
That's as idiotic as saying "yeah smoking has severe consequences, do we need to stop doing it?"
Are we missing any important inputs to climate? (like the cosmic ray / solar wind effect on cloud seeding issue).
Bahahahaha. Climate scientists have been studying the inputs for like 50 years and you think they didn't think about this issue or investigated it. Again that's like tobacco companies trying to argue that lung cancer could be caused by other things thus smoking can't be the cause of lung cancer.
If the science were settled there would be no point spending more effort on it. (Newtonian mechanics is "settled", no one does research on Newtonian mechanics).
Well that's like saying gravity is settled and we don't need to spend any money on LIGO or research on gravity.
Pfftt. NOAA can build their own satellites. And to get into space all they need is a guy with a really good arm. Geez, you people act as if you need rocket scientists for things in space.:P
You do know that NASA is at least responsible for launching the satellites that NOAA uses and needs right? Unless NOAA has dramatically changed their purpose in the government to include rocket science and launched their own rockets, NASA is still needed.
The Zune wasn't bad, but people didn't want a Microsoft Zune
The problem for MS was that the Zune was a severely crippled and mediocre competitor to iPods that was released when Apple was leaving the market for smartphones. If you are a new competitor to an established player, you have to have something that makes you better than the established player. The one actual defining feature "squirting" was so crippled as to be useless.
Add to that problem was the nonsensical marketing and advertising that MS employed. It seemed like by being obscure and mysterious, MS thought that would generate buzz for their product. If you are new player to a market, you want everyone to know what you do. Compare that to the iPhone first commercials as Apple was trying to enter the cell phone market. Notice the difference. With the iPhone ads, you know it's 1) a cell phone, 2) called "iPhone", 3) made by Apple, 4) has other functions like music, email, web, media, maps, 5) how it works, 6) when it is available, and 7) where you can get it AT&T and Apple stores. With the Zune commercial, you would have no idea what it is or what it does. Vaguely it might be music related.
Much of which I would blame on MS. From what I understand from the migration from WM6 -> WP7 -> WP8 required developers to write new apps each time. A developer would be lucky if it was as simple as opening the old app in Visual Studio and migrating, but often it would require re-writing different parts. With Android and iOS, your app would work for a few versions for the most part before you had to release a new version.
Virtually every 7.0 device got upgraded to 7.5 (unless the manufacturer abandoned it), ditto on 8.0 devices getting upgraded to 8.1.
Which is not what the OP was talking about. He's talking about WP7 -> WP8. No device could be upgraded. Imagine not being able to upgrade a computer from Vista -> 7 or 7-> 8 or 8->10. We're not talking about a long time here. From XP -> Vista (5 years) might be tricky if the computer was really old but WP8 was released only 2 years after WP7.
So how do you answer the OP's question about Minnesota. No software can actually know what the user is "planning".
Each one is different, each one has it's own crazy rules. Here is one in the state of Minnesota. Say we sell a pair of gloves. If the user uses them to keep their hands clean they are taxable. If the user uses them for a safety purpose. handling glass with sharp edges, they are not taxable. How does the seller know? So they always tax!
The second issue which the OP doesn't go into detail is that YES, you can use software to help with sales tax. However that software isn't free. For a small business that may be thousands of dollars. For a large corporation it's trickier but not impossible to collect sales taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
I again ask you what your complaint is. Science is still being done on climate change however given overwhelming evidence, no one focuses on the topic of whether humans are causing climate change. Just like no one does any research on whether mass causes gravity. It also seems that you don't know a lot about this subject but yet someone you feel qualified to throw your opinion around about it.
Every single post where you railed against scientists being political. You don't say that the action being proposed isn't correct or right. You disagree with the fact the scientists made it? It's hard to fathom what your actual complaint it.
What assertions do you think I'm making? I've not said that I think the current IPCC models are wrong, just that the work should continue because there is a lot that isn't yet known.
The flaw in your logic is that you maintain we don't know everything there we don't know enough to take a course of action. Again we don't know everything about gravity. But we know enough to launch space vehicles. We didn't know all the effects of lead in gasoline until decades after it was banned but we knew enough to remove it.
CERN investigated (and may still be doing so) the effects of cosmic rays on climate. I haven't paid a lot of attention to that work in the last few years - if they have concluded that there is no significant impact, that checks off one more unknown. Work should continue to see what else if anything is missing in the models.
My point is that CERN didn't overturn or change the conclusions of the IPCC. If anything they strengthened them. Again, you pointing to CERN only shows that you may not know enough not the IPCC.
There was a nature paper a couple of years back that didn't show the expected isotope ratio in atmospheric CO2, indicating that the turnover rate with the biosystem is faster than had been thought - that is important information to put in the models.
And can you point to where this has overturned any conclusion of the IPCC?
Sure, people have misused all sorts of arguments in the past. I"m arguing for the importance of continued research because there are a lot of unknowns. That is separate from climate POLICY which should (of course) be based on the best information we have now. (anything else is silly - why would you based policy on anything other than the best information??).
Again you are against the policy of limiting emissions and reversal? Please describe what best information is being left out. Or is this another talking point?
Somehow my argument that we don't know everything about climate is being interpreted as our not knowing enough to guide policy. I've never said or implied that.
No your argument mirrors that of Big Tobacco and leaded gasoline manufacturers of the past: Because we don't know EVERYTHING about climate change thus we shouldn't do anything about it. Delay, delay, and delay some more is one of the tactics of deniers.
To which I counter: We don't know everything about gravity. That hasn't stopped physicists from studying the universe or NASA from launching people into outer space or sending probes.
Indeed, publicizing the results would be called for. Suggesting legislation (including a ban) would not.
Er? The results have been publicized and in the case of lead in gasoline, there was a ban. Or do you prefer to have lead contaminating everywhere you live?
So it is completely natural for people opposed to a policy to look very closely at those who provided the scientific data. Think how many of us cast doubts on industry paid research conducted by real scientists. We think we know the motivation of the scientist, and thus we doubt their science.
So to be clear on the one hand you have data from thousands of scientists working in multiple fields that conclude we are altering the environment with our CO2 emissions. But you doubt them because of their "motivations"? What motivations are you insinuating?
The only way to avoid this is for scientists to recuse themselves from policy discussions. Of course this is difficult, as they are among the best informed. But to do otherwise is to compromise their ability to provide data that is perceived as unbiased.
The policy decision from scientists have been to pollute less and look for ways to reverse the change. How is that in any way controversial?
For example, look at the American CBO, which provides estimates about policy costs to the American government. They are prevented from making any policy comments at all (including having to have their estimates take into account elements that everyone knows will never be present but the politicians put in their to make proposals look credible). Why aren't they allowed to inject common-sense into the discussion, given it would make estimates more informative? Because doing so would jeopardize their ability to be seen as unbiased and in the end would render this very valuable data source completely useless.
What policy decisions do you disagree with?
Much of the reason that they've been branded as liberal is some scientists have (for understandable reason) been loudly advocating for policy that is in line with many standard liberal held policies. And by advocating for policy, they've caused their actual research to be cast into doubt.
So you are saying is that what they advocate is in line with liberal policies, therefore they must be liberal. That's faulty reasoning. That's like saying financial planners advocate conservative approaches to money management (especially for those nearing retirement) must therefore be conservatives.
Or let me put it another way. If you believe that literally the fate of mankind is at stake, what sort of monster would you have to be to not twist your research to fit whatever is necessary to push mankind into making a decision that it must make. Now, I don't believe that scientists are fudging data, but by advocating policy along with apocalyptic messaging, they've made it easier for people to believe that they might.
Please show me where this has actually happened. Also you seem to think that no one in the field of science would ever look at another scientists' data or read their papers or question their results. From what I know about scientists is that these are the same people who are willing to argue endlessly whether or not a hyphen should be in a name. Yet they are willing to accept fraud.
The main reason I tend to listen to scientists is the fact that scientists are skeptics and don't "trust" other scientists. The vast scientific community did not believe or trust Einstein when he proposed General Relativity. It took a solar eclipse before physicist began to think that General Relativity might be right.
If scientists had held off advocating policy, I think we'd have less proposed action (those scientists pushed AGW into the public consciousness), but less dispute about the actual science itself. I'd far rather have had an active po
I'm arguing that science provides information as input to policy, but science does not itself form policy.
Again, the science says we are slowly altering if not poisoning the environment. What should be the policy then? My brilliant idea would be to slow the change and look for a way to reverse it.
Science can tell you that smoking increases your chance of dying of cancer, but it has no place deciding that cigarettes should be illegal.
While you can smoke in your own home and not affect anyone else, emitting more greenhouse gases affects everyone. That's the difference. Limiting smoking in public places has been curtailed as a matter of policy because of the science.
The best science (the IPCC report in my opinion) indicates that human CO2 emission is causing significant environmental changes with large economic and other costs. That is as far as science goes. It can't say what we should do - it only gives options.
So let me understand you correctly: You agree the CO2 emissions are causing significant damage but you disagree what we should do about it? I'm no rocket scientist but reducing CO2 emissions to start and looking for ways to reverse the change ought to be course of action. Also any course of action should be modeled and monitored to see the effectiveness. If only we had agencies that could monitor atmospheric conditions and perhaps create the instruments we need for that monitoring. Oh wait! We do!
You really don't want scientists setting policy. That isn't their job.
The policy that has been proposed is we should pollute less. Why are you against that?
The way I see it, policy should be based on the best available science, but that is different from saying that science sets policy.
The problem is that you are arguing based on your viewpoint of the science and not the best available science. Please describe what "best available science" is not being considered. This is a tactic that tobacco makers have previously used. The best available science has long held that smoking is bad for you for decades but the Big Tobacco has long insisted that the best available science was being ignored.
If we can't elect politicians who are able to understand the scientific input and act on it, the that is our mistake.
We don't elect the head of NASA. We don't elect many positions in government as they are appointed. We can however voice opinions and objections to position postings.
Good question: does NOAA do its own satellites?
The answer is clearly no. No part of atmospheric science has anything to do with engineering. Just like airlines don't build their own planes. Just like the US military doesn't manufacture their bombers and fighters.
I don't know if NASA just provides launch services them (as it does for some) or actually builds the instruments.
Woah, woah, woah. So what you are saying is that you didn't already know this answer but you feel like you can adequately suggest a course of action based on your ignorance of the subject matter?
My only point is that its OK to separate NOAA and NASA functions as long as the functions are still funded and done.
Having established that you didn't research the simple question of what NASA does and NOAA does with weather satellites, maybe you should research your point about "separating" NOAA and NASA functions before you post them again.
Each person should individually and voluntarily stop, because it's the sensible thing to do.
That wasn't the question posed by the OP. If CO2 emission are doing harm to the environment, are you arguing that we shouldn't do something about it?
People should be restricted as to where and when they can do it, i.e. 18 years or older, not in restaurants or schools. If you think that's a question science can answer you don't understand what science is.
Except that climate change doesn't affect you or me individually or separately if we choose to do it. It affects us all. I don't know where you live but smoking is no longer allowed in public places like bars because it affects the public. If CO2 emissions are affecting us all, then what is your logic for not reducing emissions?
OR
NASA has a larger important that you're ever willing to admit.
Bahahaha. You mean the ">CERN project that reinforces and refines the current models of climate change?
Future global climate projections have been put on more solid empirical ground, thanks to new measurements of the production rates of atmospheric aerosol particles by CERN’s Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment.
In other words, you are referring to a project that goes only to disprove your assertions.
Come on, editors. Wtf? How is that relevant or helpful to the conversation? Are the people posting really that partisan? What are the new administrator's goals for the agency? Does he have a vision that includes manned space missions? Is he going to burn the agency to the ground? I can't tell. All I know is the poster liked Obama and doesn't like Trump which probably shouldn't be in the summary at all.
Well it seems to be indicative of this administration to post people that have a strong bias against the very agencies that they are supposed to lead. For example
So this is like appointing some to head Transportation who only takes taxis and doesn't have a Driver's License?
It's like appointing someone as Transportation Secretary who thinks that people shouldn't drive at all and take taxis. Just like this administration appointed someone in charge of education who never went to public school nor sent her children to public school and has constantly shown she has no idea how public schools work.
Seriously, being an administrator has nothing to do with actual Science. It's about people, budgets, and organization. NASA has tons of real scientist in middle management position to act as advisors.
It's one thing not to have specific science experience in a post but when you're on record denying science it's troubling. Would you like the next Surgeon General who is not a medical doctor but also someone who denies that smoking can cause cancer?
Any Real Scientist who wants to be in management probably isn't really interested in being a Scientist anymore because managers manage, they don't do the work.
That's an idiotic thing to say. That's like saying no Department Chair at any University is a REAL scientist. You seem to think that all scientists are 100% worker bees and never want to manage or lead.
Complaining about this like complaining that your accountant isn't in your business.
No it's like complaining that our head of Accounting doesn't have an accounting degree. Or that our CFO doesn't have either a finance degree or an accounting degree. And that person has said that we don't have to be accurate with our financial numbers.
So you think we know everything we need to know about climate science and don't need to study it further? If not, then its not "settled".
No one but you has ever said we "know everything we need to know about climate science". Gravity is settled as a fundamental force of nature. We still study it as there is still some knowledge that is unknown.
Otherwise you have to clarify what you think is settled? That humans cause climate change - of course - but the question is how much and the range of predictions from the IPCC is large.
I would think that modeling and monitoring the effectiveness of any solutions that are proposed and implemented would need to be done. Unless you think that any action needs not to be checked in any form.
BTW - at the end of the last ice age the Arctic *did* warm all by itself - or really in response to the variations in the earths tilt and orbit. Climate does change without human action. The question is the extent to which human action effect things. The answer looks like human effects have been quite large relative to other changes on the scale of the last century or two, but it is extremely complex to model.
And all of this is an irrelevant point brought on by deniers to muddle the question. Historically people have died from disease in the past. Thus we have no reason why we need to study diseases like cancer in the future. That's the sum of your argument.
Also I think that if we want people to respect / believe science, then science needs to be separate from politics. It needs to not take sides, but to provide politically unbiased information for people to use to set policy.
So if you have scientific information that the humans are slowly poisoning itself with lead coming from gasoline, for example, you wouldn't try to raise the alarm to have lead removed as an additive in gasoline?
One of the largest objections to current climate science is the claim that it has a liberal bias. We need to be very careful not to let that be true. Unfortunately science isn't immune to political pressure - I see it even in the non-controversial things that I work on. It takes extreme vigilance to protect science from political pressure (from either side) on the politically sensitive issues.
Where do you think that claim came from? Conservatives, namely those who stand to lose should people use less oil.
But let's look at the scientists who are arguing for climate change. This includes the vast majority of scientists. They represent virtually every country on the planet. They represent males and females of different age groups. They represent different ethnic populations and speak dozens of languages. Yet you've branded them as "liberal". Have you actually thought about that? Statistically that seems highly unlikely.
How is a policy decision a science question?
Because if your world it's either 100% policy decision or it's 100% science question in a strict binary sense. Some issues occupy multiple areas. For example smoking is a policy decision and a health question at the same time.
Science can tell us what will happen in different scenarios, but it can't tell us what we SHOULD do about it because science says nothing about what our goals are. There world will be different under different policies, but its not the job of science to tell us which of those futures are better.
Well if our goals are survival for ourselves and the planet, you'd think that you might want to get scientists involved.
Should we kill or sterilize everyone with genetic defects? Science will say that course of action will very gradually decrease the number of defects in the population, and the Nazis used this as an argument that we SHOULD take that action.
Ahhh. The eugenics fallacy. See here is where your understanding of science is extremely poor. Everyone in the world has genetic defects. EVERYONE. They are called mutations. Some mutations are beneficial and some are benign. If you argue for the murder due to genetic defects, you should volunteer to be first as a matter of principle.
Science isn't a yes / no. Certainly we don't completely understand climate.
No but certain questions are yes and no. For example we don't understand gravity completely but it's "settled" that mass causes gravity and not pixie dust. That doesn't mean that science stops looking at gravity in detail.
Should we we reduce CO2 emissions? That isn't a "science" question, it is a political question that takes (or should take) as inputs climate models and economic models.
That's as idiotic as saying "yeah smoking has severe consequences, do we need to stop doing it?"
Are we missing any important inputs to climate? (like the cosmic ray / solar wind effect on cloud seeding issue).
Bahahahaha. Climate scientists have been studying the inputs for like 50 years and you think they didn't think about this issue or investigated it. Again that's like tobacco companies trying to argue that lung cancer could be caused by other things thus smoking can't be the cause of lung cancer.
If the science were settled there would be no point spending more effort on it. (Newtonian mechanics is "settled", no one does research on Newtonian mechanics).
Well that's like saying gravity is settled and we don't need to spend any money on LIGO or research on gravity.
Pfftt. NOAA can build their own satellites. And to get into space all they need is a guy with a really good arm. Geez, you people act as if you need rocket scientists for things in space. :P
You do know that NASA is at least responsible for launching the satellites that NOAA uses and needs right? Unless NOAA has dramatically changed their purpose in the government to include rocket science and launched their own rockets, NASA is still needed.
The Zune wasn't bad, but people didn't want a Microsoft Zune
The problem for MS was that the Zune was a severely crippled and mediocre competitor to iPods that was released when Apple was leaving the market for smartphones. If you are a new competitor to an established player, you have to have something that makes you better than the established player. The one actual defining feature "squirting" was so crippled as to be useless.
Add to that problem was the nonsensical marketing and advertising that MS employed. It seemed like by being obscure and mysterious, MS thought that would generate buzz for their product. If you are new player to a market, you want everyone to know what you do. Compare that to the iPhone first commercials as Apple was trying to enter the cell phone market. Notice the difference. With the iPhone ads, you know it's 1) a cell phone, 2) called "iPhone", 3) made by Apple, 4) has other functions like music, email, web, media, maps, 5) how it works, 6) when it is available, and 7) where you can get it AT&T and Apple stores. With the Zune commercial, you would have no idea what it is or what it does. Vaguely it might be music related.
They never got the app base,
Much of which I would blame on MS. From what I understand from the migration from WM6 -> WP7 -> WP8 required developers to write new apps each time. A developer would be lucky if it was as simple as opening the old app in Visual Studio and migrating, but often it would require re-writing different parts. With Android and iOS, your app would work for a few versions for the most part before you had to release a new version.
Virtually every 7.0 device got upgraded to 7.5 (unless the manufacturer abandoned it), ditto on 8.0 devices getting upgraded to 8.1.
Which is not what the OP was talking about. He's talking about WP7 -> WP8. No device could be upgraded. Imagine not being able to upgrade a computer from Vista -> 7 or 7-> 8 or 8->10. We're not talking about a long time here. From XP -> Vista (5 years) might be tricky if the computer was really old but WP8 was released only 2 years after WP7.
The way I understand it, generally people with more seniority are paid more. They also have more vacation days.
So how do you answer the OP's question about Minnesota. No software can actually know what the user is "planning".
Each one is different, each one has it's own crazy rules. Here is one in the state of Minnesota. Say we sell a pair of gloves. If the user uses them to keep their hands clean they are taxable. If the user uses them for a safety purpose. handling glass with sharp edges, they are not taxable. How does the seller know? So they always tax!
The second issue which the OP doesn't go into detail is that YES, you can use software to help with sales tax. However that software isn't free. For a small business that may be thousands of dollars. For a large corporation it's trickier but not impossible to collect sales taxes.
The irony is that someone probably thought they were leaking the memo for fun and will probably be fired because of it.