Great powers can no longer win wars because of Nukes. The calculus is quite different to what you suggest. Don't get sucked into a pissing match with some Russian nationalist. Sure they've got good weapons, but nobody seriously thinks that Russia would have a chance in a conventional war against the west.
It astounds me how naive nationalists of all kinds tend to be. The Ukranians have the same dignity as every other country, and being crushed into a civil war is a high price to pay for a bunch of Russians to feel "proud" of their country. It is rather pathetic really.
The culprit is probably sugar, although there may be other confounding factors. Whatever the cause, metabolic disorder is going to cost more and more each year if nothing is done about it. Subsidizing the medical consequences of eating lots of refined sugar is perhaps the biggest negative externality in the economy ever.
I also submit that Global warming / Climate Change has been ruined by the alarmists overstating there case rather than presenting clear and accurate statistics and claims.
There is enough blame to go around all sides of the political debate. But the science was always clear. The NAS showed that there was scientific consensus in 1979, and the public was on board, until Luntz, and some ex-tobacco propagandists got at it in the mid 1990s. Their actions are a matter of public record, but for some reason most people aren't interested in the actual history, except for some historians. And the political manipulation continues. Part of that is to always accuse the other guy of exactly what you are doing.
If someone agrees with you, they have the "truth". If someone disagrees, they have an agenda.
Why don't you read the original research, examine the/evidence/, replicate it if you want, and then decide. Suppose you like easy answers that fit your preconceived world view. So no agenda there.
The article in question is really just a sly way of arguing that climate change deniers' brains are deficient, compared to readers whose superior brains have recognized the evidence for climate change.
The first rule of crankery is to generate thoughts to defend said crankery.
If you think something is all one way or the other, then that should raise a red flag that you are deluding yourself.
Some disasters came true. (e.g., the collapse of the atlantic fisheries). Some were averted. (e.g., the ozone hole, or, acid rain.) Some were bogus. (e.g., religious based end-times.)
There is such a thing as nuance, and understanding. Just because some people like beating the drums of doom doesn't mean that there is no problem that needs to be fixed.
Scientists who study political opinion on this issue are not interested in engaging you because they know there is no way to change the mind of "true believers". So no-one serious thinks they will change your mind by making fun of you. If you think about it, a smart person like you should be able to figure out the point of this type of research.
You're evading the point. The Pentagon has long listed climate change as a national security threat because it is a threat multiplier. The top brass did their own analysis on whether the science is real. Keep in mind that most of the armed services vote GOP.
Haha, by their own lights all cranks think they have the truth. Afterall, you probably think you know better than all those scientists, probably because of some lame conspiracy theory. The simple truth is that cranks of all kinds hold the opinions they do because they pay no immediate price for their false beliefs -- and if they/changed/ their beliefs, they could pay an immediate price in terms of status, friendships, or even their job. But scientists are in it just for the money, right?
Yeah, the world will be a better place if large parts become uninhabitable, and sea rise destroys most of our property, and we have to move agriculture. Heaven forbid we pursue any of the near-zero cost solutions that take money away from major GOP donors. I mean, think of the crime of asking Koch and Exxon to come up with new business models!
Climate was a lot different in the past as well, e.g., sea level was 70 feet higher. The sun was a lot dimer in the past as well. Change isn't the problem, but the rate of change can be. I wish you could see how facile your argument is... but you're probably just dreaming up other ways why you are right and I am wrong.
Exponential growth has no limits! Seriously, the world is more complicated than your simple rule of thumb implies. When was the last time a problem was solved when people didn't first raise a warning.
Forcing someone to act in violation of their personal convictions just because YOU think you are right is intolerance.
You may be right. I'm curious: what would you say to those people who were denied marriage licenses because one partner was white and the other black?
The notion of "what is okay" and "what is not okay" is far more powerful than laws. So the world is getting smaller, and activists are telling people that gay is okay. That's just the world live in. Objectively speaking, teh gay is mostly biologically based. I'd be surprised with disgust and prudishness are not mostly biologically based as well. If it is a question of weighing one person's disgust against another person's life and happiness, I'll choose the later any day.
There is some truth to what you say, but you are neglecting the bigger picture. German (and Danish) engineers are being pressed into solving a difficult but not insurmountable problem: how do you build a robust grid from renewable energy sources. The critics said they wouldn't get past 3%. There will always be nay-sayers. Still your point stands: for the time-being Germany is depending, in part, on the French nuclear industry, and the Russian gas industry too.
The "most informed" are usually the most misled. Bertrand Russell's famous quote about ignorance and bluster is about you. It doesn't always have to be that way.
So if you truly care about the wellbeing of people, you'll promptly STFU because CO2 isn't a toxic threat!
You wouldn't care less about the science if it had nothing to do with economic change. But because it does, the science must be wrong. And you know this because you read blogs!!! You are so SMART!!!
It's having an economy with enough demand for labor that people can get jobs and earn their own way without relying on forced charity from their neighbors.
The German mixed-market economy is underwritten by sound economic analysis. They 3% during the great recession. When was the last time the USA had 3% growth? If you grow the pie, then the "forced charity" is free.
Most people in the USA want to run the economy according to the moral code: "what is mine is mine". That is great and all, but it just isn't serious economics.
Read Trust me, I'm Lying -- it is a book by a self-confessed media manipulator who got depressed and left the industry. He worked for an apparel company. One example tactic was to take sexually explicit photos of porn stars, and then complain about said photos to feminist groups. And then: OUTRAGE!!!
The story of ACORN is a perfect example of how media manipulators manufactured a scandal -- literally creating reality for movement conservatives -- in order to shut the group down. To this day, some GOP congress critters are unaware that ACORN is defunct. The interesting thing is, the more outraged a person is (politically), the easier they are to manipulate. It is all rather ironic.
Some people put forward the moral argument that you shouldn't spend other's hard earned money. Others put forward the moral argument that we should help the poor. Still others use considered analysis and modeling to try and understand the network of incentives in order to predict the outcome of policy initiatives. There are no a priori correct answers here. Do you know what this last group thinks of your assertion?
Slashdot Mirror
The plane will deform at something around 15g.
I bet facebook and google have pretty good ideas on who is going to vote, and who they will vote for. The world of machine learning.
Great powers can no longer win wars because of Nukes. The calculus is quite different to what you suggest. Don't get sucked into a pissing match with some Russian nationalist. Sure they've got good weapons, but nobody seriously thinks that Russia would have a chance in a conventional war against the west.
It astounds me how naive nationalists of all kinds tend to be. The Ukranians have the same dignity as every other country, and being crushed into a civil war is a high price to pay for a bunch of Russians to feel "proud" of their country. It is rather pathetic really.
The culprit is probably sugar, although there may be other confounding factors. Whatever the cause, metabolic disorder is going to cost more and more each year if nothing is done about it. Subsidizing the medical consequences of eating lots of refined sugar is perhaps the biggest negative externality in the economy ever.
I also submit that Global warming / Climate Change has been ruined by the alarmists overstating there case rather than presenting clear and accurate statistics and claims.
There is enough blame to go around all sides of the political debate. But the science was always clear. The NAS showed that there was scientific consensus in 1979, and the public was on board, until Luntz, and some ex-tobacco propagandists got at it in the mid 1990s. Their actions are a matter of public record, but for some reason most people aren't interested in the actual history, except for some historians. And the political manipulation continues. Part of that is to always accuse the other guy of exactly what you are doing.
If someone agrees with you, they have the "truth". If someone disagrees, they have an agenda.
/evidence/, replicate it if you want, and then decide. Suppose you like easy answers that fit your preconceived world view. So no agenda there.
Why don't you read the original research, examine the
The article in question is really just a sly way of arguing that climate change deniers' brains are deficient, compared to readers whose superior brains have recognized the evidence for climate change.
The first rule of crankery is to generate thoughts to defend said crankery.
If you think something is all one way or the other, then that should raise a red flag that you are deluding yourself.
Some disasters came true. (e.g., the collapse of the atlantic fisheries). Some were averted. (e.g., the ozone hole, or, acid rain.) Some were bogus. (e.g., religious based end-times.)
There is such a thing as nuance, and understanding. Just because some people like beating the drums of doom doesn't mean that there is no problem that needs to be fixed.
Scientists who study political opinion on this issue are not interested in engaging you because they know there is no way to change the mind of "true believers". So no-one serious thinks they will change your mind by making fun of you. If you think about it, a smart person like you should be able to figure out the point of this type of research.
You're evading the point. The Pentagon has long listed climate change as a national security threat because it is a threat multiplier. The top brass did their own analysis on whether the science is real. Keep in mind that most of the armed services vote GOP.
Haha, by their own lights all cranks think they have the truth. Afterall, you probably think you know better than all those scientists, probably because of some lame conspiracy theory. The simple truth is that cranks of all kinds hold the opinions they do because they pay no immediate price for their false beliefs -- and if they /changed/ their beliefs, they could pay an immediate price in terms of status, friendships, or even their job. But scientists are in it just for the money, right?
Yeah, the world will be a better place if large parts become uninhabitable, and sea rise destroys most of our property, and we have to move agriculture. Heaven forbid we pursue any of the near-zero cost solutions that take money away from major GOP donors. I mean, think of the crime of asking Koch and Exxon to come up with new business models!
Climate was a lot different in the past as well, e.g., sea level was 70 feet higher. The sun was a lot dimer in the past as well. Change isn't the problem, but the rate of change can be. I wish you could see how facile your argument is... but you're probably just dreaming up other ways why you are right and I am wrong.
Exponential growth has no limits! Seriously, the world is more complicated than your simple rule of thumb implies. When was the last time a problem was solved when people didn't first raise a warning.
Humans are no more evolved than any other living creature on the planet.
Forcing someone to act in violation of their personal convictions just because YOU think you are right is intolerance.
You may be right. I'm curious: what would you say to those people who were denied marriage licenses because one partner was white and the other black?
The notion of "what is okay" and "what is not okay" is far more powerful than laws. So the world is getting smaller, and activists are telling people that gay is okay. That's just the world live in. Objectively speaking, teh gay is mostly biologically based. I'd be surprised with disgust and prudishness are not mostly biologically based as well. If it is a question of weighing one person's disgust against another person's life and happiness, I'll choose the later any day.
There is some truth to what you say, but you are neglecting the bigger picture. German (and Danish) engineers are being pressed into solving a difficult but not insurmountable problem: how do you build a robust grid from renewable energy sources. The critics said they wouldn't get past 3%. There will always be nay-sayers. Still your point stands: for the time-being Germany is depending, in part, on the French nuclear industry, and the Russian gas industry too.
The "most informed" are usually the most misled. Bertrand Russell's famous quote about ignorance and bluster is about you. It doesn't always have to be that way.
So if you truly care about the wellbeing of people, you'll promptly STFU because CO2 isn't a toxic threat!
You wouldn't care less about the science if it had nothing to do with economic change. But because it does, the science must be wrong. And you know this because you read blogs!!! You are so SMART!!!
It's having an economy with enough demand for labor that people can get jobs and earn their own way without relying on forced charity from their neighbors.
The German mixed-market economy is underwritten by sound economic analysis. They 3% during the great recession. When was the last time the USA had 3% growth? If you grow the pie, then the "forced charity" is free.
Most people in the USA want to run the economy according to the moral code: "what is mine is mine". That is great and all, but it just isn't serious economics.
Who is going to make the other 85% stop using fossil fuels?
Technology.
Read Trust me, I'm Lying -- it is a book by a self-confessed media manipulator who got depressed and left the industry. He worked for an apparel company. One example tactic was to take sexually explicit photos of porn stars, and then complain about said photos to feminist groups. And then: OUTRAGE!!!
The story of ACORN is a perfect example of how media manipulators manufactured a scandal -- literally creating reality for movement conservatives -- in order to shut the group down. To this day, some GOP congress critters are unaware that ACORN is defunct. The interesting thing is, the more outraged a person is (politically), the easier they are to manipulate. It is all rather ironic.
I am sure that Gore would have made many annoying mistakes, but you are fooling yourself if you think both parties are the same.
People in politics are motivated as much by their personal beliefs as anything else. Judge them by what they do.
Some people put forward the moral argument that you shouldn't spend other's hard earned money. Others put forward the moral argument that we should help the poor. Still others use considered analysis and modeling to try and understand the network of incentives in order to predict the outcome of policy initiatives. There are no a priori correct answers here. Do you know what this last group thinks of your assertion?