I think Hanlon's razor is a perfectly adequate tool for this assertion. Why would someone malevolently steer towards terrible waste, when they could be "just trying to do their job" and not doing a great job it?
IPCC is generally considered mainline, due to scope, scale, and review levels. We've been trending just a hair warmer than "most likely warming" predictions(but well below "worst case") for a while now.
Unbreakable symmetric key encryption isn't worth a damn if you have no secure means of exchanging keys.
"Hey, Alice" "Hey, Bob" "See anyone around, Alice?" "Nope, you?" "Nope" "Here, take this thumb drive with my pictures, the 6th of which totally doens't hide my encryption key" "Sure thing, Alice"
The elite at the top are actually temporary political positions that come and go with presidents. The worst of the NSA programs have been continuous programs lasting between administrations.
That, my friend, is known as the gish gallop where you propose so many wrong headed ideas(each of which a reasonable explanation of would take 10 times as long as spewing out) so quickly as to appear to have an undeniable point.
Yes, and if weren't for the other parts of the post, that'd be a pretty good critique. It ignores the former(widescale observational data) and the latter(astounding predictive accuracy on primary variables, by mainline predictions, such as IPCC).
But yeah, if you ignore reality and data, it is "just a theory". Just like gravity
No, see, I have just posted in a global warming thread. Someone went back and modded all my posts(just -1, no biggy), as a perfectly valid commentary on my opinions.
Your the one that points out every storm or high temperature is PROOF of global warming.
No one is seriously doing that. The proof is in the absolute fuck-ton of easy to validate wide scale observational data, core sound principles(like absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses), and the staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories.
What everyone needs to remember is that believers are idiots who think it is all or nothing, Man is causing the problem and there are no possible other reasons
Except that's a stupid proposition that is just untrue. Of course people who understand global warming don't think it's "All or nothing". It's cold where I am today, and that has nothing to do with the fact that this winter is still, on average, almost a degree warmer than a decade ago. Your placing yourself right in-between scientifically accurate and idiotically wrong just makes you wrong too. It doesn't make you a "reasonable moderate" it just makes you another willfully ignorant person who doesn't even begin to understand the basic science in question.
The presence of idiots doesn't even begin to justify that one "side" is entirely idiotic positions.
Or how the frackin antarctic works. It's much more relevant here that we're talking about the single coldest region of the planet. What everyone needs to remember is that deniers are idiots who think it is all or nothing, and the idea of the south pole being cold or it snowing anywhere is somehow relevant.
Their minds do not work correctly, because even a trivial examination of the ideas here would reveal the problem with this thinking. They do it anyways.
The peasant wasn't intended as classism but I was looking for a term of summary dismissal that didn't imply stupidity. I felt like there might have been a better choice, but I couldn't come up with one.
Not for any meaningful definition of "both sides" you haven't. The vast majority of what's said in the denial side has 0% representation, and you'll find more published fringe views suggesting cataclysm than that.
Economic models have nothing to do with who wins the lottery. It's a false parallel
Nope. That's exactly why it's apt. Climate models have nothing to do with whether it's going to be icy today. You're intentionally conflating scales in order to be as wrong as you possibly can. I don't get it.
It's not implausible to aggregate some cause there. "The dice are loaded" as claimed in your "damning" link doesn't mean we always roll sixes, just that they come up more often.
That's the thing. Overall statistically significant changes in weather patterns, like, say, overall drought occurrence, or net amount of flooding changing decade to decade can be attributed. Things are changing, just not in a localized predictable way. (Hurricanes in particular show no correlation, as far as I've read)
"Truth is in the middle" is an idea that assumes there's a fundamentally equal basis to "both sides." When it comes to science v. ignoramuses+shills, that's not really going to work.
Some points are wrong forever, and climate change denialism is one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Hanlon's razor is a perfectly adequate tool for this assertion. Why would someone malevolently steer towards terrible waste, when they could be "just trying to do their job" and not doing a great job it?
IPCC is generally considered mainline, due to scope, scale, and review levels. We've been trending just a hair warmer than "most likely warming" predictions(but well below "worst case") for a while now.
No, once one shill prepares an item on the list, a thousand suckers can repeat it easily.
Globally. Obviously, I don't have detailed data on my particular microclimate, and the data is leaning towards cooler than last year, but way warmer than a decade ago. obviously december isn't done yet, check back in a week
Unbreakable symmetric key encryption isn't worth a damn if you have no secure means of exchanging keys.
"Hey, Alice"
"Hey, Bob"
"See anyone around, Alice?"
"Nope, you?"
"Nope"
"Here, take this thumb drive with my pictures, the 6th of which totally doens't hide my encryption key"
"Sure thing, Alice"
The elite at the top are actually temporary political positions that come and go with presidents. The worst of the NSA programs have been continuous programs lasting between administrations.
That, my friend, is known as the gish gallop where you propose so many wrong headed ideas(each of which a reasonable explanation of would take 10 times as long as spewing out) so quickly as to appear to have an undeniable point.
Yes, and if weren't for the other parts of the post, that'd be a pretty good critique. It ignores the former(widescale observational data) and the latter(astounding predictive accuracy on primary variables, by mainline predictions, such as IPCC).
But yeah, if you ignore reality and data, it is "just a theory". Just like gravity
No, see, I have just posted in a global warming thread. Someone went back and modded all my posts(just -1, no biggy), as a perfectly valid commentary on my opinions.
The main joke of my post here is that congress actually cares.
It's a tool to help them justify congress how they can be spying on all Americans and not spying on any Americans at the same time.
Your the one that points out every storm or high temperature is PROOF of global warming.
No one is seriously doing that. The proof is in the absolute fuck-ton of easy to validate wide scale observational data, core sound principles(like absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses), and the staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories.
What everyone needs to remember is that believers are idiots who think it is all or nothing, Man is causing the problem and there are no possible other reasons
Except that's a stupid proposition that is just untrue. Of course people who understand global warming don't think it's "All or nothing". It's cold where I am today, and that has nothing to do with the fact that this winter is still, on average, almost a degree warmer than a decade ago. Your placing yourself right in-between scientifically accurate and idiotically wrong just makes you wrong too. It doesn't make you a "reasonable moderate" it just makes you another willfully ignorant person who doesn't even begin to understand the basic science in question.
The presence of idiots doesn't even begin to justify that one "side" is entirely idiotic positions.
"Why does everything always happen to me?"
Mostly because they're at the frickin' south pole.
Or how the frackin antarctic works. It's much more relevant here that we're talking about the single coldest region of the planet. What everyone needs to remember is that deniers are idiots who think it is all or nothing, and the idea of the south pole being cold or it snowing anywhere is somehow relevant.
Their minds do not work correctly, because even a trivial examination of the ideas here would reveal the problem with this thinking. They do it anyways.
The peasant wasn't intended as classism but I was looking for a term of summary dismissal that didn't imply stupidity. I felt like there might have been a better choice, but I couldn't come up with one.
Oh, look, it's a non-scientist.
Wow. Much ball. Very dodge.
If you want to be some sort of 19th century peasant.
Not for any meaningful definition of "both sides" you haven't. The vast majority of what's said in the denial side has 0% representation, and you'll find more published fringe views suggesting cataclysm than that.
Economic models have nothing to do with who wins the lottery. It's a false parallel
Nope. That's exactly why it's apt. Climate models have nothing to do with whether it's going to be icy today. You're intentionally conflating scales in order to be as wrong as you possibly can. I don't get it.
Traceable only as far as a .wallet file. Not necessarily traceable to an address, phone number, person like a check is.
It's not implausible to aggregate some cause there. "The dice are loaded" as claimed in your "damning" link doesn't mean we always roll sixes, just that they come up more often.
That is a reasonable interpretation.
That's the thing. Overall statistically significant changes in weather patterns, like, say, overall drought occurrence, or net amount of flooding changing decade to decade can be attributed. Things are changing, just not in a localized predictable way. (Hurricanes in particular show no correlation, as far as I've read)
"Truth is in the middle" is an idea that assumes there's a fundamentally equal basis to "both sides." When it comes to science v. ignoramuses+shills, that's not really going to work.
Some points are wrong forever, and climate change denialism is one of them.