But the science/does/ convince on its own merits. Nobody who actually knows anything about the science could possibly be a sceptic unless they were stark raving mad.
All the information wasn't released because there was not license to do so. It is just a matter of rules./Most/ of the data was released though. This is purely a storm in a tea-cup.
"Not paranoid" is two words, so I will stick with "sane".
I bet you are incapable of sitting through this 10 minute video, because you are too emotionally invested in your paranoid bizarro-world.
I happen to personally know something about the science, and the academic debate on the issue has nothing to do with the laughably paranoid public "debate", which is really just a bunch of intransigent know-it-alls flogging one tired dead argument after another, without stopping to ever learn something about what they are saying.
Their goal is to make money, not to prove the truth.
As someone in the university system, I can attest to the fact that/anyone/ would have their career made, and tenure at big-university-of-choice if they could come up with a substantive claim against climate change science. Heck, if/you/ want to make money, you surely could do that yourself.
Truth is, there is more money to be made as an oil industry shill (just ask Soon and Ballonis). Skeptics already have their minds made up. By definition, that is arrogance, and has nothing to do with seeking truth.
Because they refused to supply anything at all right from the start.
They handed over the information that they had access to, and then told the interested parties where to get the rest. Apparently that wasn't good enough. More to the point, the "skeptics" were just plain not interested in the data, and just saw a way to make a nuisance of themselves.
We've seen far too many times throughout history that people (the scientific community included) have some severe resistance to ideas that don't mesh with their commonly held beliefs
This is true, but people who say this seem to always imply that their armchair philosophizing is somehow better, and that is/false/ and a long stretch.
There's lots of people out there who think that businesses should just do what they want, and that the government shouldn't intervene at all. So if a business wants patents, then they should get them, and we should reward the job creators who run the businesses with tax loop-holes, so they pay less (percentage) then their secretaries.
You know most of these pirates simply want to have food medical care and a way to support their families. People who have food, and a means to support themselves and their families are usually very enthusiastic about science and learning.
This is true, but their behaviour is caused by systemic violence and corruption in their society. Either you go into their country and tame the savages (we all know how that turns out), or you let them sort out their own problems. If you choose the later, then shooting pirates is just applying the golden rule. If I engaged in piracy myself, I would expect violence to be a natural consequence of my actions. They have to learn how to take care of themselves without leeching off of others.
It doesn't matter to you whether scientists collect data or not. You will just assume you know better -- right? The beliefs come first, and then the "evidence" is lawyered by your "super" intelligence. There is indeed an inverse relationship between someone's competence, and their own belief in their competence.
Do you have any empirical data that already shows that paying less taxes will somehow improve the economic situation? I am not talking about shoot-from-the-hip theories, but actual data.
Leaving aside blind dislike for a moment... see if you can find any country in this list that you would like to live in, that has a smaller tax revenue than the USA:
That is just an opinion that the vast majority of economists (and educated people) disagree with. Sometimes I wish we could send all the people like you to a separate country, so that you can screw up your own lives without affecting mine. Perhaps the feeling is mutual =). There is no tax, and no government in Somalia. Go for it.
Of course common sense is pretty rare after a century of compulsory schooling by government teachers.
What you say about the Laffer curve is true, except I suspect from your "compulsory government schooling" jibe, that you believe the optimal tax level is less then the current level. Funny that these things comes together.
Obama and the Democrats don't want to cut anything (except for defense)
This is just untrue. Obama is proposing $3 of tax cuts for every $1 of tax increase. Spending cuts are across the board, and both discretionary spending and Medicare/Medicaid are taking far bigger hits than the military. Did you deliberately miss the memo?
btw, Reagan/increased/ net tax revenue by closing loopholes for the rich. Reagan also introduced spending rules that mandated that all government spending must be accounted for by either a tax increase or a budget cut. George W. waited for those rules to expire before engaging in the worst big-government spending spree in all of history.
Furthermore, you should also learn what the paradox of thrift means.
I sit on the fence with politics, where I can see huge problems with the political "discourse", which is more about sides than ideas.
For example, it amazes me that Republicans think of themselves as the fiscally responsible party, since they have a history of/rampant/ government spending on social programs (e.g.: Medicaid Part D), and the military. George W was the worst president in all of history in this regard. His own treasury secretary, Paul O'Neil, resigned because of W's irresponsible attitude.
If you think this is just partisan spin -- a lot of the financial crisis can be laid on the shoulders of Larry Summers (Clinton's secretary of treasury), but that part of the story really goes back to Ayn Rand's prodigy, Alan Greenspan. Greenspan and Summers were thick as thieves, and their continued to increase through the 80s and 90s up until the present. Rand's fundamental idea is progressive politics (i.e.: more liberal than conservative), but it happened to be popularised by Thatcher and Reagan, and then continued through the Clinton era.
If you pull your head out of your partisan ass, you might discover that the world is far more interesting then the tired black and white, four-legs-good, two-legs-bad memes that float around your head. Modern political history really is very interesting, and Paul O'Neil's story is an interesting one, and a key to understand the current debt crisis. I would also learn something about deficit spending, which is almost universally supported as an essential ingredient in abating deep recessions and depressions.
I suspect my words are wasted on you, because partisans are far more interested in talking then learning anything. They just want to own the debate, so that they feel "right", and there-by avoid the imminent threat of discovering that they really know jack shit.Both sides of the political "discourse" clutch at whatever strawmen are within arms reach, and alas, nothing of consequence is ever said.
Slashdot Mirror
when your science fails to convince?
But the science /does/ convince on its own merits. Nobody who actually knows anything about the science could possibly be a sceptic unless they were stark raving mad.
No, there were definitely the target. Watch here and here.
All the information wasn't released because there was not license to do so. It is just a matter of rules. /Most/ of the data was released though. This is purely a storm in a tea-cup.
I don't see any reason it should ever have been kept confidential.
I bet it all has to do with money. It /does/ cost money to collect data you know.
There's a name fore people like that.
"Not paranoid" is two words, so I will stick with "sane".
I bet you are incapable of sitting through this 10 minute video, because you are too emotionally invested in your paranoid bizarro-world.
I happen to personally know something about the science, and the academic debate on the issue has nothing to do with the laughably paranoid public "debate", which is really just a bunch of intransigent know-it-alls flogging one tired dead argument after another, without stopping to ever learn something about what they are saying.
Their goal is to make money, not to prove the truth.
As someone in the university system, I can attest to the fact that /anyone/ would have their career made, and tenure at big-university-of-choice if they could come up with a substantive claim against climate change science. Heck, if /you/ want to make money, you surely could do that yourself.
Truth is, there is more money to be made as an oil industry shill (just ask Soon and Ballonis). Skeptics already have their minds made up. By definition, that is arrogance, and has nothing to do with seeking truth.
Because they refused to supply anything at all right from the start.
They handed over the information that they had access to, and then told the interested parties where to get the rest. Apparently that wasn't good enough. More to the point, the "skeptics" were just plain not interested in the data, and just saw a way to make a nuisance of themselves.
But it *is* denial, of the pathological kind.
I know it is polite and all to be nice to people, but we are dealing with psychosis here, and a lot is at stake.
Nothing will happen. The deniers will not even bother to look at the information. They will just seek new ways to be a nuisance.
Global *cooling* was not a consensus, but merely a possibility that was put forward in a famous paper, and explored for a little bit.
But this little bit of information will do nothing to dent your certainty that science is just plain flawed.
We've seen far too many times throughout history that people (the scientific community included) have some severe resistance to ideas that don't mesh with their commonly held beliefs
This is true, but people who say this seem to always imply that their armchair philosophizing is somehow better, and that is /false/ and a long stretch.
Because the businesses write the laws. From this point of view, the GOP is all about big government.
There's lots of people out there who think that businesses should just do what they want, and that the government shouldn't intervene at all. So if a business wants patents, then they should get them, and we should reward the job creators who run the businesses with tax loop-holes, so they pay less (percentage) then their secretaries.
People really believe this.
You know most of these pirates simply want to have food medical care and a way to support their families. People who have food, and a means to support themselves and their families are usually very enthusiastic about science and learning.
This is true, but their behaviour is caused by systemic violence and corruption in their society. Either you go into their country and tame the savages (we all know how that turns out), or you let them sort out their own problems. If you choose the later, then shooting pirates is just applying the golden rule. If I engaged in piracy myself, I would expect violence to be a natural consequence of my actions. They have to learn how to take care of themselves without leeching off of others.
It doesn't matter to you whether scientists collect data or not. You will just assume you know better -- right? The beliefs come first, and then the "evidence" is lawyered by your "super" intelligence. There is indeed an inverse relationship between someone's competence, and their own belief in their competence.
What we know about climate change. Of course, he who doesn't listen cannot hear.
You just create dependence doing that.
Read the judge's order. Google was told to remove the search results from /all/ their sites.
Thanks, just filed my comments.
So the /only/ OECD country that pays less taxes then the USA is Turkey (by a slim margin). Taxes are almost /double/ in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Italy, and these countries are nothing like North Korea. In fact, Norway as a /higher/ GDP per capita then America.
Do you have any empirical data that already shows that paying less taxes will somehow improve the economic situation? I am not talking about shoot-from-the-hip theories, but actual data.
Leaving aside blind dislike for a moment... see if you can find any country in this list that you would like to live in, that has a smaller tax revenue than the USA:
/intelligent/ to cognize there. What do you think?
List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP
There is something
Raising taxes will only further DECREASE revenue.
That is just an opinion that the vast majority of economists (and educated people) disagree with. Sometimes I wish we could send all the people like you to a separate country, so that you can screw up your own lives without affecting mine. Perhaps the feeling is mutual =). There is no tax, and no government in Somalia. Go for it.
Of course common sense is pretty rare after a century of compulsory schooling by government teachers.
What you say about the Laffer curve is true, except I suspect from your "compulsory government schooling" jibe, that you believe the optimal tax level is less then the current level. Funny that these things comes together.
Obama and the Democrats don't want to cut anything (except for defense)
This is just untrue. Obama is proposing $3 of tax cuts for every $1 of tax increase. Spending cuts are across the board, and both discretionary spending and Medicare/Medicaid are taking far bigger hits than the military. Did you deliberately miss the memo?
/increased/ net tax revenue by closing loopholes for the rich. Reagan also introduced spending rules that mandated that all government spending must be accounted for by either a tax increase or a budget cut. George W. waited for those rules to expire before engaging in the worst big-government spending spree in all of history.
btw, Reagan
Furthermore, you should also learn what the paradox of thrift means.
You have a lot to learn, lol!
I sit on the fence with politics, where I can see huge problems with the political "discourse", which is more about sides than ideas.
/rampant/ government spending on social programs (e.g.: Medicaid Part D), and the military. George W was the worst president in all of history in this regard. His own treasury secretary, Paul O'Neil, resigned because of W's irresponsible attitude.
For example, it amazes me that Republicans think of themselves as the fiscally responsible party, since they have a history of
If you think this is just partisan spin -- a lot of the financial crisis can be laid on the shoulders of Larry Summers (Clinton's secretary of treasury), but that part of the story really goes back to Ayn Rand's prodigy, Alan Greenspan. Greenspan and Summers were thick as thieves, and their continued to increase through the 80s and 90s up until the present. Rand's fundamental idea is progressive politics (i.e.: more liberal than conservative), but it happened to be popularised by Thatcher and Reagan, and then continued through the Clinton era.
If you pull your head out of your partisan ass, you might discover that the world is far more interesting then the tired black and white, four-legs-good, two-legs-bad memes that float around your head. Modern political history really is very interesting, and Paul O'Neil's story is an interesting one, and a key to understand the current debt crisis. I would also learn something about deficit spending, which is almost universally supported as an essential ingredient in abating deep recessions and depressions.
I suspect my words are wasted on you, because partisans are far more interested in talking then learning anything. They just want to own the debate, so that they feel "right", and there-by avoid the imminent threat of discovering that they really know jack shit.Both sides of the political "discourse" clutch at whatever strawmen are within arms reach, and alas, nothing of consequence is ever said.