It's more complex than that. Tax cuts are sweeping and wide across sectors and entire economies. They universally give all businesses affected the ability to modify operations more fluidly. Typically this means multiple businesses in a sector will have a greater strategic ability to out-compete their competitors, and so should probably do something about that.
When a single business in a stable market has no specific pressures, it can choose to continue operating stable and slim down; or it can expand. When expansion is enforced by large market movements (like wide tax cuts), a business must leverage its fluidity (at least enough to stay fluid rather than re-solidify) or it will die. Leveraging usually brings more jobs.
There is no test you can devise to show a cause or even real existence of global warming and climate change; at least until we understand climate, which will not be any time soon.
Have you tried CDP-Choline? (Hit/Miss, if you're depleted you WILL have migraines...). There's this thing where people try to fix shit by throwing solutions at it (like CDP-Choline, as mentioned), but without trying to actually identify the problem. What's causing your migraines? I mean, painkillers won't fix the cause. High blood pressure (diuretics)? Sinus infection (antibiotics)? Inflammation (NSAIDs)? Your brain eating itself trying to strip acetylcholine out of existing brain cells to function (CDP-Choline)?
My metaphor isn't flawed. The idea that "X is beneficial because here is an instance of X being beneficial" is a flawed argument called cherry picking; the idea that "X is not harmful because here is an instance of X being beneficial" is a false equivalence or undistributed middle (it's been a while since I've taken up stomping people into the ground by grinding down their slipshod arguments; I'm not nearly as good at this as I once was). You can't target part of the brain with marijuana; you suck it in and let it do what it does. If there's a beneficial effect and a harmful effect, you take both; like any other drug (fucking Prednisone, Methylphenedate, adderall, etc.), you get both and decide if the benefit is worth the risk and harm.
Culture Fair 3 attempts to analyze for both effects of learned data and unlearned data--it assumes that IQ tests are inherently faulty because people have a tendency to learn how to take an IQ test, and then separates out knowledge into crystalized and fluid knowledge and tests each separately.
Also, statistics tends to show normal distribution curves where something can validly be measured in a certain way. IQ tests in general produce normal population distributions with a mean and a variance that produces a proper normal distribution curve, so they're measuring something. The data may be "subjective", but it's "subjective" to different people in a mathematically consistent way, which is an objective measurement.
You're using the "intelligence is impossible to measure" argument, rather than outright saying "intelligence is a complex science and I don't understand it". Next you'll tell us it's physically impossible for bees to fly.
Logical Fallacy: Cherry Picking. Also you're comparing a particular clinical effect with other unrelated clinical effect, which is false equivalence. Essentially someone said "It's well-known pouring water in your gas tank will fuck your car up" and you're like "And yet putting water in your car can fix an overheating engine!" and show someone adding water to the radiator. In this case, the water goes everywhere, so yeah it goes in the engine where it doesn't belong (bad) and into the radiator which is critically low (good), for an overall good effect.
"I drive high all the time and I'm fine, it doesn't impair your driving."
Studies have been done that actually index a sober person's ability against drunk peoples' abilities. Marijuana has surprisingly low impairment but it's significant, something like 0.06 on a scale where alcohol is between 0.27 and 0.48. Penicillin ranks around 0.18 on that scale.
Further, different drugs have differing effects that make a flat impairment measurement kind of nonsense. For example, alcohol makes it extremely difficult to process wtf is going on in general, as well as affecting judgment and extending reaction time, all while distorting the precision of the driver's fine motor skills needed to physically control the car even if his brain is 100% sober. Marijuana slows reaction time and can affect decision making to a lesser degree than alcohol. Ambien and Valerian root can both negate decision making--I went through a train crossing on Valerian once because I just saw it, acknowledged the stopped cars and barrier arm, and didn't really think to stop (that "don't take this unless you have 8 hours to devote to sleep" label specifically means more than 6).
With all of these, it's possible to "not be very impaired." You can be drunk as shit but somehow hobble the fucking car home all the time, in traffic, and be like, "Shhhhheeee I cam fffuckin duwhrife!" as you walk face first into a doorknob. Most sober people don't notice all the retarded shit they do when they're driving. I've swerved out of the way of drivers who changed lanes into the lane I was already in and watched them look back at me all pissed off like they don't know what I was fucking doing there; you'd think a normal, sober person would get that changing into an occupied lane is their fault, but they somehow don't get the impression that they did anything wrong there. It's unsurprising that people will drive around high without incident and conclude that they're not impaired and are driving quite well, but it's not really true.
George Carlin was kind of wrong. It's more that 17% are stupider than the average. The first standard deviation is 66%, which means that 34% fall outside what's reasonably average. Of that 34%, 17% are above and 17% are below. That means 17% of the population is notably dumb, the rest is pretty much on the same level or notably smarter than average. The variance in this 66% is tolerable enough to not matter (evolution of a social species and all).
The real argument is that people as a whole are not "intelligent" but rather "social". Humans are capable of recognizing a cause-and-effect relationship and applying some spatial analysis; very few humans are capable of creating ordered analysis to produce complex effects from these abilities. For the most part, we've evolved such that simple cause-and-effect can be identified by a few, who then make tools like levers and hammers. Others then use these tools, and some recognize another cause-and-effect chain and figure out how to leverage these tools into that. Levers and hammers become presses. Fire and sealed presses run the lever in reverse and become engines. Spears get jabbed into animals and kill them so you can eat; springy things spring when tugged, put spear on springy thing and make bow, use bow to throw spear and kill animal. Now train morons to use bows.
I'm hoping Cricket dies, because... I mean I get the small operator thing and competition and whatnot, but I've seen their "You can pay $10 or $20!" commercials like... I'll see 18 cricket commercials in a row, and then some gay ass Bud Light commercial when I'm watching YouTube videos. I checked? Costs the same as T-Mobile for greatly reduced service, not half as god damn much as anything.
T-Mobile isn't even half as much as Verizon, and they're claiming they cost half as much. I pay $60/mo on T-Mobile for unlimited texts and 2GB data and 450 talk, versus like $96 on verizon for unlimited talk and text and data that I was paying when I switched. The difference is Verizon billed this as under $80, plus fees, plus taxes, bringing it up by $15-$18 more; T-Mobile bills this as $50/mo plus I pay $5/mo for the 2GB data plan, and I wind up with $5 in taxes and fees. So I'm like... Cricket isn't half as expensive; Verizon's comparable plans are cheaper, Cricket isn't offering as much, and T-Mobile is offering more for the same amount!
They can all die. I don't want to see your commercial 8000 times. I flag Zoosk as inappropriate on Facebook all the time because they ran an ad campaign that amounts to "Women are morons, and get taken in by moron men who are even stupider and obviously taking advantage of them" on every fucking youtube video I watched for 4 months straight. "So I'm a fireman. Uhhh. And I uh. Like. I like puppies." "Ohhh god...he's so hot!" "Huhuhuh." Wow that's the dumbest bitch I've EVER seen, and that dude is going to play her like a retarded fiddle and probably bang her sister and half her friends too, and he's probably as smart as an expired jar of mayonnaise. That makes her dumber than a brick made of shit. You too could take advantage of ridiculously stupid women and get loads of head! Join Zoosk! Watching another YouTube video? You can't skip the ad, better watch this 45 second long Zoosk ad first! See how dumb this retarded bitch is? You could be hooking up with her RIGHT NOW while you plan how you're going to leave town good lord she has some sweet tits!
Somebody has to be looking. Catching people is hard; we can't even catch pedophiles who are banging kids, instead settling for people watching dirty videos and claiming this helps somehow.
As a student of PMI project management, I can say it's not very hard to do this right. If you do a work breakdown and scope document for the task of "stealing a bunch of secrets," and write up a WBS dictionary, you'll invariably wind up pulling in all kinds of extra considerations. Like log clean-up, the visibility of log clean-up, and thus the need for targeted log clean-up to hide your actions. What logs? Better kill -9 $$ my bash shell when I log out... and get the auditd logs scrubbed, right.
No, what I'm reading here is that you hail a cab and you're charged $1; they don't say, "This is a free service. You pay fare. You went 20 miles at $1/mile, that's $20" and then take a dollar from the cabbie. They're like, "You went $20 miles at $1/mile, also $1 for booking, that's $21" and then bill the cabbie $2 of his $20 from fare.
Why should I target CabCo drivers rather than CoCabber? Oh, because CabCo pays me a fee and CoCabber doesn't... I profit off them, they signed up and I maintain their information and track them and contact them. They pay for that, plus some cut of their business. Yeah, fuck you CoCabber guys, find your own riders.
I'm only seeing a one-sided story with no real story in here. And what I'm seeing sounds like huge lawyer bullshit and media bait.
Try this:
This new lawsuit mirrors the central claim in the Boston case, in which cab driver David Lavitman said Uber was effectively skimming half his 20 percent tip by taking a $1 booking fee and 10 percent of the fare. Liss-Riordan is also one of the attorneys in that case.
"Effectively"? It sounds like a $1 booking fee (operational fee per booking for the service provider) plus a percent of total service provided (i.e. miles). This means you get billed for using the service to get a cab ($1), plus they get a cut of the total transit mileage (10% fare). That seems fair and normal for this sort of business--I mean hell, pizza delivery services charge a fucking delivery fee that doesn't go to the driver as a tip, because they have to idle and coordinate drivers while paying them a wage.
It also sounds like the fare belongs to the driver, so effectively the drivers are basically contractors. Or clients? I would have modeled this as that the drivers join to find passengers to get money from, and the passengers join to hail cabs.
“In some situations, they charge 20 percent gratuity to the customer and they only give 10 percent of that to the driver,” Liss-Riordan said. “In other instances, they just say the gratuity is included, but they don’t actually give the drivers a gratuity. So they’re basically lying to the customers.”
This sounds like bullshit. "Rather than having a single, standard system that would stand up to legal scrutiny and that may have explainable flaws in case of legal disputes, the company is going through the effort of actively doing multiple dumbshit things that provide greater and more expensive operational overhead and an obvious case for legal malice."... yeah, no. It sounds more like "I only got half my tip wah wah wah!" "I never gots MAH tips!" hear-say being parroted as fact, before any real discovery. Given the timing, I would bet money discovery hasn't occurred and they're just making shit up.
But let's attack the big evil corporation. Start-ups are the new 1%!
Or similarly:
Fact: 97% of scientists (who expressed an opinion on AGW in a peer-reviewed article) indicate that AGW is real.
Fact: 31% of peer-reviewed articles produced about AGW concluded that there was sufficient evidence that AGW is a real, human-caused event. The remaining 69% did not find sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that AGW is a real, human-caused event.
"Did a study, looked at numbers, crunched some math, and could not find sufficient evidence with applied effort" is a real, actual thing with a measure. Throwing those out would be like showing that 100% of Americans are safe in cars by showing that, of Americans with clean driving histories, none of them have caused collisions. Let's just exclude bad drivers, because they don't count because they don't know how to drive. Americans that can drive well never cause collisions, so we can conclude that driver's education in America and driver improvement programs are of extremely high-quality and produce high-quality drivers.
The first thing they taught us in statistics was how to manipulate numbers. They do this because getting statistics right is hard and you can easily mis-intererptet your own studies. The fact that they prime us to manipulate people directly and intentionally is just a side effect. Doubly so, the fact that they prime us to look at people who are trying to confound and cherry pick and go, "Dude, you're nuts."
Cherry picking would be like saying, "Anyone who disagrees with $CONCLUSION is a kook." Or, "Anyone who has not made a determination is not a data point." Excluding data that weakens an argument while including specific strengthening data. Confounding would be if you included non-relevant papers about the size of different race's penises, which has nothing to do with this but it dilutes the findings to make some of the numbers smaller.
It seems you're cherry picking, and then suggesting that I'm confounding.
Also, what about strawberry ice cream? If 33% of your blogs indicate that Strawberry Ice Cream is immensely superior to other ice cream, and 66% say that it's just another flavor, do you come back and say "99% of bloggers agree that strawberry ice cream is way better than other ice cream"? Because that's what's being argued here.
Only if you include studies that make no conclusion at all regarding AGW, which makes absolutely no sense.
Well if we include Al Gore, 100% of prominent politicians who express an opinion on Manbearpig believe Manbearpig is real, so Manbearpig is real.
Seriously, your argument is that if some group of people say something, and others look at the topic and form no opinion, and it's this small group of people espousing an opinion and a larger (over twice as large) majority examining that opinion and not supporting but also not condemning it, then those loud alarmists are right. You're saying that what the few believe is automatically the only important thing, so long as the many do not directly weigh in against them.
Slashdot Mirror
New technologies like what? Getting other businesses to hire more people than they need and create more redundant jobs in other sectors?
It's more complex than that. Tax cuts are sweeping and wide across sectors and entire economies. They universally give all businesses affected the ability to modify operations more fluidly. Typically this means multiple businesses in a sector will have a greater strategic ability to out-compete their competitors, and so should probably do something about that.
When a single business in a stable market has no specific pressures, it can choose to continue operating stable and slim down; or it can expand. When expansion is enforced by large market movements (like wide tax cuts), a business must leverage its fluidity (at least enough to stay fluid rather than re-solidify) or it will die. Leveraging usually brings more jobs.
Economy is complex.
What's going on is people are using the old "They have a lot of money and are doing well, so they should hand out charity jobs!" argument.
There is no test you can devise to show a cause or even real existence of global warming and climate change; at least until we understand climate, which will not be any time soon.
Have you tried CDP-Choline? (Hit/Miss, if you're depleted you WILL have migraines...). There's this thing where people try to fix shit by throwing solutions at it (like CDP-Choline, as mentioned), but without trying to actually identify the problem. What's causing your migraines? I mean, painkillers won't fix the cause. High blood pressure (diuretics)? Sinus infection (antibiotics)? Inflammation (NSAIDs)? Your brain eating itself trying to strip acetylcholine out of existing brain cells to function (CDP-Choline)?
My metaphor isn't flawed. The idea that "X is beneficial because here is an instance of X being beneficial" is a flawed argument called cherry picking; the idea that "X is not harmful because here is an instance of X being beneficial" is a false equivalence or undistributed middle (it's been a while since I've taken up stomping people into the ground by grinding down their slipshod arguments; I'm not nearly as good at this as I once was). You can't target part of the brain with marijuana; you suck it in and let it do what it does. If there's a beneficial effect and a harmful effect, you take both; like any other drug (fucking Prednisone, Methylphenedate, adderall, etc.), you get both and decide if the benefit is worth the risk and harm.
Culture Fair 3 attempts to analyze for both effects of learned data and unlearned data--it assumes that IQ tests are inherently faulty because people have a tendency to learn how to take an IQ test, and then separates out knowledge into crystalized and fluid knowledge and tests each separately.
Also, statistics tends to show normal distribution curves where something can validly be measured in a certain way. IQ tests in general produce normal population distributions with a mean and a variance that produces a proper normal distribution curve, so they're measuring something. The data may be "subjective", but it's "subjective" to different people in a mathematically consistent way, which is an objective measurement.
You're using the "intelligence is impossible to measure" argument, rather than outright saying "intelligence is a complex science and I don't understand it". Next you'll tell us it's physically impossible for bees to fly.
The solution is more government!
Logical Fallacy: Cherry Picking. Also you're comparing a particular clinical effect with other unrelated clinical effect, which is false equivalence. Essentially someone said "It's well-known pouring water in your gas tank will fuck your car up" and you're like "And yet putting water in your car can fix an overheating engine!" and show someone adding water to the radiator. In this case, the water goes everywhere, so yeah it goes in the engine where it doesn't belong (bad) and into the radiator which is critically low (good), for an overall good effect.
Somebody isn't familiar with either statistics or Culture Fair 3.
"I drive high all the time and I'm fine, it doesn't impair your driving."
Studies have been done that actually index a sober person's ability against drunk peoples' abilities. Marijuana has surprisingly low impairment but it's significant, something like 0.06 on a scale where alcohol is between 0.27 and 0.48. Penicillin ranks around 0.18 on that scale.
Further, different drugs have differing effects that make a flat impairment measurement kind of nonsense. For example, alcohol makes it extremely difficult to process wtf is going on in general, as well as affecting judgment and extending reaction time, all while distorting the precision of the driver's fine motor skills needed to physically control the car even if his brain is 100% sober. Marijuana slows reaction time and can affect decision making to a lesser degree than alcohol. Ambien and Valerian root can both negate decision making--I went through a train crossing on Valerian once because I just saw it, acknowledged the stopped cars and barrier arm, and didn't really think to stop (that "don't take this unless you have 8 hours to devote to sleep" label specifically means more than 6).
With all of these, it's possible to "not be very impaired." You can be drunk as shit but somehow hobble the fucking car home all the time, in traffic, and be like, "Shhhhheeee I cam fffuckin duwhrife!" as you walk face first into a doorknob. Most sober people don't notice all the retarded shit they do when they're driving. I've swerved out of the way of drivers who changed lanes into the lane I was already in and watched them look back at me all pissed off like they don't know what I was fucking doing there; you'd think a normal, sober person would get that changing into an occupied lane is their fault, but they somehow don't get the impression that they did anything wrong there. It's unsurprising that people will drive around high without incident and conclude that they're not impaired and are driving quite well, but it's not really true.
You overestimate drunks and underestimate visual processing. That the car can drive at all is a big hint that it's contextually aware.
Yes they try to fix dying people who got smashed to pieces by drunk drivers.
FEWER mechanics you window-licking, helmet-wearing shittart.
George Carlin was kind of wrong. It's more that 17% are stupider than the average. The first standard deviation is 66%, which means that 34% fall outside what's reasonably average. Of that 34%, 17% are above and 17% are below. That means 17% of the population is notably dumb, the rest is pretty much on the same level or notably smarter than average. The variance in this 66% is tolerable enough to not matter (evolution of a social species and all).
The real argument is that people as a whole are not "intelligent" but rather "social". Humans are capable of recognizing a cause-and-effect relationship and applying some spatial analysis; very few humans are capable of creating ordered analysis to produce complex effects from these abilities. For the most part, we've evolved such that simple cause-and-effect can be identified by a few, who then make tools like levers and hammers. Others then use these tools, and some recognize another cause-and-effect chain and figure out how to leverage these tools into that. Levers and hammers become presses. Fire and sealed presses run the lever in reverse and become engines. Spears get jabbed into animals and kill them so you can eat; springy things spring when tugged, put spear on springy thing and make bow, use bow to throw spear and kill animal. Now train morons to use bows.
9 years of experience and a bachelor's.
Putting cab drivers and EMTs out of a job is never a bad thing. Ever.
I'm hoping Cricket dies, because... I mean I get the small operator thing and competition and whatnot, but I've seen their "You can pay $10 or $20!" commercials like ... I'll see 18 cricket commercials in a row, and then some gay ass Bud Light commercial when I'm watching YouTube videos. I checked? Costs the same as T-Mobile for greatly reduced service, not half as god damn much as anything.
T-Mobile isn't even half as much as Verizon, and they're claiming they cost half as much. I pay $60/mo on T-Mobile for unlimited texts and 2GB data and 450 talk, versus like $96 on verizon for unlimited talk and text and data that I was paying when I switched. The difference is Verizon billed this as under $80, plus fees, plus taxes, bringing it up by $15-$18 more; T-Mobile bills this as $50/mo plus I pay $5/mo for the 2GB data plan, and I wind up with $5 in taxes and fees. So I'm like ... Cricket isn't half as expensive; Verizon's comparable plans are cheaper, Cricket isn't offering as much, and T-Mobile is offering more for the same amount!
They can all die. I don't want to see your commercial 8000 times. I flag Zoosk as inappropriate on Facebook all the time because they ran an ad campaign that amounts to "Women are morons, and get taken in by moron men who are even stupider and obviously taking advantage of them" on every fucking youtube video I watched for 4 months straight. "So I'm a fireman. Uhhh. And I uh. Like. I like puppies." "Ohhh god...he's so hot!" "Huhuhuh." Wow that's the dumbest bitch I've EVER seen, and that dude is going to play her like a retarded fiddle and probably bang her sister and half her friends too, and he's probably as smart as an expired jar of mayonnaise. That makes her dumber than a brick made of shit. You too could take advantage of ridiculously stupid women and get loads of head! Join Zoosk! Watching another YouTube video? You can't skip the ad, better watch this 45 second long Zoosk ad first! See how dumb this retarded bitch is? You could be hooking up with her RIGHT NOW while you plan how you're going to leave town good lord she has some sweet tits!
Somebody has to be looking. Catching people is hard; we can't even catch pedophiles who are banging kids, instead settling for people watching dirty videos and claiming this helps somehow.
As a student of PMI project management, I can say it's not very hard to do this right. If you do a work breakdown and scope document for the task of "stealing a bunch of secrets," and write up a WBS dictionary, you'll invariably wind up pulling in all kinds of extra considerations. Like log clean-up, the visibility of log clean-up, and thus the need for targeted log clean-up to hide your actions. What logs? Better kill -9 $$ my bash shell when I log out... and get the auditd logs scrubbed, right.
No, what I'm reading here is that you hail a cab and you're charged $1; they don't say, "This is a free service. You pay fare. You went 20 miles at $1/mile, that's $20" and then take a dollar from the cabbie. They're like, "You went $20 miles at $1/mile, also $1 for booking, that's $21" and then bill the cabbie $2 of his $20 from fare.
Why should I target CabCo drivers rather than CoCabber? Oh, because CabCo pays me a fee and CoCabber doesn't... I profit off them, they signed up and I maintain their information and track them and contact them. They pay for that, plus some cut of their business. Yeah, fuck you CoCabber guys, find your own riders.
It's all pre-discovery hearsay.
I'm only seeing a one-sided story with no real story in here. And what I'm seeing sounds like huge lawyer bullshit and media bait.
Try this:
This new lawsuit mirrors the central claim in the Boston case, in which cab driver David Lavitman said Uber was effectively skimming half his 20 percent tip by taking a $1 booking fee and 10 percent of the fare. Liss-Riordan is also one of the attorneys in that case.
"Effectively"? It sounds like a $1 booking fee (operational fee per booking for the service provider) plus a percent of total service provided (i.e. miles). This means you get billed for using the service to get a cab ($1), plus they get a cut of the total transit mileage (10% fare). That seems fair and normal for this sort of business--I mean hell, pizza delivery services charge a fucking delivery fee that doesn't go to the driver as a tip, because they have to idle and coordinate drivers while paying them a wage.
It also sounds like the fare belongs to the driver, so effectively the drivers are basically contractors. Or clients? I would have modeled this as that the drivers join to find passengers to get money from, and the passengers join to hail cabs.
“In some situations, they charge 20 percent gratuity to the customer and they only give 10 percent of that to the driver,” Liss-Riordan said. “In other instances, they just say the gratuity is included, but they don’t actually give the drivers a gratuity. So they’re basically lying to the customers.”
This sounds like bullshit. "Rather than having a single, standard system that would stand up to legal scrutiny and that may have explainable flaws in case of legal disputes, the company is going through the effort of actively doing multiple dumbshit things that provide greater and more expensive operational overhead and an obvious case for legal malice." ... yeah, no. It sounds more like "I only got half my tip wah wah wah!" "I never gots MAH tips!" hear-say being parroted as fact, before any real discovery. Given the timing, I would bet money discovery hasn't occurred and they're just making shit up.
But let's attack the big evil corporation. Start-ups are the new 1%!
Or similarly: Fact: 97% of scientists (who expressed an opinion on AGW in a peer-reviewed article) indicate that AGW is real.
Fact: 31% of peer-reviewed articles produced about AGW concluded that there was sufficient evidence that AGW is a real, human-caused event. The remaining 69% did not find sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that AGW is a real, human-caused event.
"Did a study, looked at numbers, crunched some math, and could not find sufficient evidence with applied effort" is a real, actual thing with a measure. Throwing those out would be like showing that 100% of Americans are safe in cars by showing that, of Americans with clean driving histories, none of them have caused collisions. Let's just exclude bad drivers, because they don't count because they don't know how to drive. Americans that can drive well never cause collisions, so we can conclude that driver's education in America and driver improvement programs are of extremely high-quality and produce high-quality drivers.
The first thing they taught us in statistics was how to manipulate numbers. They do this because getting statistics right is hard and you can easily mis-intererptet your own studies. The fact that they prime us to manipulate people directly and intentionally is just a side effect. Doubly so, the fact that they prime us to look at people who are trying to confound and cherry pick and go, "Dude, you're nuts."
Cherry picking would be like saying, "Anyone who disagrees with $CONCLUSION is a kook." Or, "Anyone who has not made a determination is not a data point." Excluding data that weakens an argument while including specific strengthening data. Confounding would be if you included non-relevant papers about the size of different race's penises, which has nothing to do with this but it dilutes the findings to make some of the numbers smaller.
It seems you're cherry picking, and then suggesting that I'm confounding.
Dude, you're nuts.
Also, what about strawberry ice cream? If 33% of your blogs indicate that Strawberry Ice Cream is immensely superior to other ice cream, and 66% say that it's just another flavor, do you come back and say "99% of bloggers agree that strawberry ice cream is way better than other ice cream"? Because that's what's being argued here.
Only if you include studies that make no conclusion at all regarding AGW, which makes absolutely no sense.
Well if we include Al Gore, 100% of prominent politicians who express an opinion on Manbearpig believe Manbearpig is real, so Manbearpig is real.
Seriously, your argument is that if some group of people say something, and others look at the topic and form no opinion, and it's this small group of people espousing an opinion and a larger (over twice as large) majority examining that opinion and not supporting but also not condemning it, then those loud alarmists are right. You're saying that what the few believe is automatically the only important thing, so long as the many do not directly weigh in against them.