Citation needed. There is ZERO evidence that Mao was a net positive. The only people who think otherwise are ideologues who believe that communism is inherently good and benevolent regardless of it's actual effects, and despite the totalitarianism inherent in it's basic definition. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" has no room whatsoever for freedom of choice.
I'm not in support of using the minority report. I would quibble about basically flat and could argue that some of the slopes qualify, but thanks for pointing out the data link to get the slope of the line.
I think the more likely issue is just a matter of bias, not deliberate malfeasance. It's really hard to see errors in something when you get the results you expect. For TOBS adjustments for USHCN in particular, a mathematical artifact from the way they try to correct for it seemed more likely. That's based solely on my intuition as a mathematician though. Since we know they have engaged in deliberate efforts to conceal disconfirming evidence, and to punish journals for publishing papers whose conclusions they didn't like, I don't consider malfeasance completely implausible.
It's interesting to just plot the trendline of various sets. I especially find it interesting when you do so from the year I suggested previously, 2002.
CRU Global Average is how they described in on their page. Going by the link, it was HADCRUT3. Which shoes only.01C over the period. They didnt specifiy variance adjusted or not, and their choice of endpoints were on specific months, so i'm going to go with some cherry picking there as well.
I meant to include this in my previous line. The way NOAA wrote that note in 2008 did not exclude peak to trough periods of 15 years or longer. It's a reasonable exclusion to make though, so I decline to hold that against them.
Tolerance does not equal approval. The fact that you can still do your job is irrelevant. They are under no obligation to hire you just because you are qualified, and there is a good reason to suspect that someone who is philosophically opposed to government will not do the best job they can for the government even if they are theoretically capable of doing so. Now, if you had already been hired and had a good track record, you would have a good argument against being fired.
After playing with the data for a bit, I found one set of data that has a downward trend. The RSS MSU lower trop global mean. Starting in 1999, which is a more reasonable year, it shift to a slight upward trend. Unfortunately your site doesn't give a value for the slope. Eyeballing it, 2002 or thereabouts is a better start, which drops them below the 15 year cutoff, except the line from NOAA didn't exclude peak to trough periods.
Being highly set dependent is suspicious, but the on the other side the adjusments made to surface station data are suspicious in nature based on my own checking. Specifically, averaging all adjustments for the GHCN after the flap about the Darwin station, I found a definite warming linear trend in the adjustments. The USHCN had a significant quadratic trend in adjustments, such that 80% or more of the warming trend in the data was created by the adjustments.
They were using global coverage. CRU Global average in the downward trend, and UAH in the one that had a very slight upward trend (.0004 per year). I can't see the slope of the trendline on that site you gave, but visually it's the same. Calling that basically flat is defensible, assuming reasonable error bars.
Joseph Stack was not affiliated with the tea party according. His manifesto was pro communist and anti capitalist. Basically a lone nut whose politics were left wing if anything.
The existence of an outlier in noisy data is NOT THE SAME THING as ending a trend. The trendline for the last 15 years is flat. http://cosmoscon.com/2013/03/1... gives some pictures so I don't have to.
It is outside the 95% confidence interval of existing models, according to NOAA back in 2008.
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
Reading your link, their claim amounts to adding a new correction term to bring them in sync (that's what the new green line and range on the graph is). Which means they need another couple of decades to test the new modified models to see if they are sufficiently accurate. "We're right because we can add a correction term to cover this divergence that we didn't predict before" is entirely unconvincing. I find it highly suspicious that they chose to claim 2001 as the start, which doesn't match the date anyone else is using for the start of the current pause, 1999.
It's completely fair to point out when someone tries to claim A is not equal to A', where A' is just a different wording of the same thing. I didn't say anything about whether the warming has actually stopped or slowed, only pointed out that he was trying to claim a distinction without a difference.
I'm sorry, nothing you said was actually responsive to my point. The models didn't make any claims about ocean temperatures increasing. They specifically predicted surface temperatures continuing to increase. They were wrong in a single unified direction. Ocean warming is an attempt to explain why they were wrong in a single direction, but that doesn't make the models actually right. It's not just that they were wrong, but the consistency in the nature of their error. Since those predictions are the basis of the fears of catastrophic warming, their fears were based on an error. I stand by "overstated" but I would be willing to walk back "vastly" if ocean warming holds up as an explanation.
"Even the much-hyped hiatus is a hiatus in growth of the anomaly, not a cessation of warming." Read that again and think about what the words actually mean.
warming: increase in temperature
anomaly: difference in average temperature from a defined period (that's how the word is generally used in climate science)
A hiatus in growth of the anomaly really does mean a cessation of warming. It make pick up again later.
What does seem to be news to everyone that isn't a skeptic is that the models are almost all wrong in one direction: more warming. The alarmists in general still refuse to accept that the fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are vastly overstated.
Well, the 97% consensus paper cited above only got to that number after throwing out non-climatologists, taking them for over 3000 respondents to under 80. The linked press release mentioned the values for a particular subset of the scientiests whose responses were removed, but didn't give us info on phsysicists or mathematicians. I think it's highly likely that some of those in the removed set were skeptical, and basing their skepticisim within their specialty as applied within climate science. Not to mention the very broad wording of the questions, such that skeptics about the scope of the affect of humans on the warming would be included in the consensus.
For a specific case, my first thought was McKintyre vs Mann, but they are both mathematicians by training.
I wasn't trying to solve disputes in advance in any way, merely noting a flaw in the appeal to authority used by the comment I was responding to.
It didn't qualify as abduction because it not against her will, she went along with it. She wasn't forced to do drugs, because among other things she didn't actually do them. She was pressured to do so, but that's a rather large difference from actually being forced to do drugs like you originally claimed. Huffington post called it "tried to force" which I can't fault them for as it's apparently what the source said, but it still doesn't match your initial claims.
The truth is rather less scary than the huffingtonpost or your initial comment make it seem. Among other things, she went along voluntarily, no force involved, and considered something similar to hazing. She was not forced to do drugs, and wasn't abducted against her will.
Within a city, I would guess that the correlation between poverty and race is a factor. No stats on this, but I would expect areas with poorer residents to have fewer funds to pay for voting booth. There are a lot of possible confounding variables though.
I despise early voting, but targeted elimination of the practice is at least suspicious. Frankly, I'm surprised they ever offered it on any weekend, since government usually doesn't operate on those days.
As far as reasons for density affecting voting times, I don't know. I would hazard a guess about having less space to work with in the first place. I don't know that there really is such an association, I really just wanted to note that your response wasn't relevant to what gtall had suggested. It's probably worth looking into.
"Correlated with" does NOT mean "caused by". Going by purely academic achievement, while race blind, would have a disparate affect because different races perform differently at lower levels of education as well. That's not the responsibility of higher education to fix.
That link does not disagree with gtall's basic point. Assuming for the sake of arguments that longer voting times are caused by a higher population density and that blacks are disproportionately concentrated in high density areas, the racial disparity in voting times is likely a side affect of population density rather evidence of racism. The numbers at the end of your link even show the disparity base on number of voters.
You can't use a nationwide average to dispute an argument based on clustering. Simpson's paradox is a bitch. Anyone who doesn't understand it in principle if not by name is incompetent to make arguments using statistics. That seems to be a strong majority of the people actually making such arguments, but I stand by the assertion.
Not putting your stamp of approval on a couple is a non-action. Non-actions remain non-actions no matter how much some people want certain actions to occur to their benefit, and non-actions have no impact on anyone (their status before and after is identical). Government marriage rules are an explicit stamp of societal approval on whatever arrangements are included. As such, they are a matter of equal privileges not equal rights. The 14th amendment is still relevant in any case, it's only the rhetoric that many gay marriage supporters use that I object to, such as your comment here.
I'd rather the government get out of the marriage business altogether. Since I can't have that, I'll support gay marriage.
Maybe sugar has healing properties? It actually seems a little plausible to me that adding some simple sugars to your digestive system might help your gut out.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation needed. There is ZERO evidence that Mao was a net positive. The only people who think otherwise are ideologues who believe that communism is inherently good and benevolent regardless of it's actual effects, and despite the totalitarianism inherent in it's basic definition. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" has no room whatsoever for freedom of choice.
Zimmerman was found not guilty based on basic self defense, NOT stand your ground laws.
I'm not in support of using the minority report. I would quibble about basically flat and could argue that some of the slopes qualify, but thanks for pointing out the data link to get the slope of the line.
.01C over the period. They didnt specifiy variance adjusted or not, and their choice of endpoints were on specific months, so i'm going to go with some cherry picking there as well.
I think the more likely issue is just a matter of bias, not deliberate malfeasance. It's really hard to see errors in something when you get the results you expect. For TOBS adjustments for USHCN in particular, a mathematical artifact from the way they try to correct for it seemed more likely. That's based solely on my intuition as a mathematician though. Since we know they have engaged in deliberate efforts to conceal disconfirming evidence, and to punish journals for publishing papers whose conclusions they didn't like, I don't consider malfeasance completely implausible.
It's interesting to just plot the trendline of various sets. I especially find it interesting when you do so from the year I suggested previously, 2002.
CRU Global Average is how they described in on their page. Going by the link, it was HADCRUT3. Which shoes only
I meant to include this in my previous line. The way NOAA wrote that note in 2008 did not exclude peak to trough periods of 15 years or longer. It's a reasonable exclusion to make though, so I decline to hold that against them.
Tolerance does not equal approval. The fact that you can still do your job is irrelevant. They are under no obligation to hire you just because you are qualified, and there is a good reason to suspect that someone who is philosophically opposed to government will not do the best job they can for the government even if they are theoretically capable of doing so. Now, if you had already been hired and had a good track record, you would have a good argument against being fired.
After playing with the data for a bit, I found one set of data that has a downward trend. The RSS MSU lower trop global mean. Starting in 1999, which is a more reasonable year, it shift to a slight upward trend. Unfortunately your site doesn't give a value for the slope. Eyeballing it, 2002 or thereabouts is a better start, which drops them below the 15 year cutoff, except the line from NOAA didn't exclude peak to trough periods.
Being highly set dependent is suspicious, but the on the other side the adjusments made to surface station data are suspicious in nature based on my own checking. Specifically, averaging all adjustments for the GHCN after the flap about the Darwin station, I found a definite warming linear trend in the adjustments. The USHCN had a significant quadratic trend in adjustments, such that 80% or more of the warming trend in the data was created by the adjustments.
They were using global coverage. CRU Global average in the downward trend, and UAH in the one that had a very slight upward trend (.0004 per year). I can't see the slope of the trendline on that site you gave, but visually it's the same. Calling that basically flat is defensible, assuming reasonable error bars.
They aren't required to approve of people who want to throw them out, and hiring would be a sign of approval.
Joseph Stack was not affiliated with the tea party according. His manifesto was pro communist and anti capitalist. Basically a lone nut whose politics were left wing if anything.
The existence of an outlier in noisy data is NOT THE SAME THING as ending a trend. The trendline for the last 15 years is flat. http://cosmoscon.com/2013/03/1... gives some pictures so I don't have to.
Bullshit. I cited a 2008 article because they named a period that would indicate the models were dead.
A plateau is still a hiatus in growth. Your point is nonsense.
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
Reading your link, their claim amounts to adding a new correction term to bring them in sync (that's what the new green line and range on the graph is). Which means they need another couple of decades to test the new modified models to see if they are sufficiently accurate. "We're right because we can add a correction term to cover this divergence that we didn't predict before" is entirely unconvincing. I find it highly suspicious that they chose to claim 2001 as the start, which doesn't match the date anyone else is using for the start of the current pause, 1999.
It's completely fair to point out when someone tries to claim A is not equal to A', where A' is just a different wording of the same thing. I didn't say anything about whether the warming has actually stopped or slowed, only pointed out that he was trying to claim a distinction without a difference.
I'm sorry, nothing you said was actually responsive to my point. The models didn't make any claims about ocean temperatures increasing. They specifically predicted surface temperatures continuing to increase. They were wrong in a single unified direction. Ocean warming is an attempt to explain why they were wrong in a single direction, but that doesn't make the models actually right. It's not just that they were wrong, but the consistency in the nature of their error. Since those predictions are the basis of the fears of catastrophic warming, their fears were based on an error. I stand by "overstated" but I would be willing to walk back "vastly" if ocean warming holds up as an explanation.
"Even the much-hyped hiatus is a hiatus in growth of the anomaly, not a cessation of warming." Read that again and think about what the words actually mean.
warming: increase in temperature
anomaly: difference in average temperature from a defined period (that's how the word is generally used in climate science)
A hiatus in growth of the anomaly really does mean a cessation of warming. It make pick up again later.
What does seem to be news to everyone that isn't a skeptic is that the models are almost all wrong in one direction: more warming. The alarmists in general still refuse to accept that the fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are vastly overstated.
Well, the 97% consensus paper cited above only got to that number after throwing out non-climatologists, taking them for over 3000 respondents to under 80. The linked press release mentioned the values for a particular subset of the scientiests whose responses were removed, but didn't give us info on phsysicists or mathematicians. I think it's highly likely that some of those in the removed set were skeptical, and basing their skepticisim within their specialty as applied within climate science. Not to mention the very broad wording of the questions, such that skeptics about the scope of the affect of humans on the warming would be included in the consensus.
For a specific case, my first thought was McKintyre vs Mann, but they are both mathematicians by training.
I wasn't trying to solve disputes in advance in any way, merely noting a flaw in the appeal to authority used by the comment I was responding to.
If a climatologist and a mathematician disagree on the math used in a climate paper, who is the expert?
It didn't qualify as abduction because it not against her will, she went along with it. She wasn't forced to do drugs, because among other things she didn't actually do them. She was pressured to do so, but that's a rather large difference from actually being forced to do drugs like you originally claimed. Huffington post called it "tried to force" which I can't fault them for as it's apparently what the source said, but it still doesn't match your initial claims.
The truth is rather less scary than the huffingtonpost or your initial comment make it seem. Among other things, she went along voluntarily, no force involved, and considered something similar to hazing. She was not forced to do drugs, and wasn't abducted against her will.
Within a city, I would guess that the correlation between poverty and race is a factor. No stats on this, but I would expect areas with poorer residents to have fewer funds to pay for voting booth. There are a lot of possible confounding variables though.
I despise early voting, but targeted elimination of the practice is at least suspicious. Frankly, I'm surprised they ever offered it on any weekend, since government usually doesn't operate on those days.
As far as reasons for density affecting voting times, I don't know. I would hazard a guess about having less space to work with in the first place. I don't know that there really is such an association, I really just wanted to note that your response wasn't relevant to what gtall had suggested. It's probably worth looking into.
"Correlated with" does NOT mean "caused by". Going by purely academic achievement, while race blind, would have a disparate affect because different races perform differently at lower levels of education as well. That's not the responsibility of higher education to fix.
That link does not disagree with gtall's basic point. Assuming for the sake of arguments that longer voting times are caused by a higher population density and that blacks are disproportionately concentrated in high density areas, the racial disparity in voting times is likely a side affect of population density rather evidence of racism. The numbers at the end of your link even show the disparity base on number of voters.
You can't use a nationwide average to dispute an argument based on clustering. Simpson's paradox is a bitch. Anyone who doesn't understand it in principle if not by name is incompetent to make arguments using statistics. That seems to be a strong majority of the people actually making such arguments, but I stand by the assertion.
Not putting your stamp of approval on a couple is a non-action. Non-actions remain non-actions no matter how much some people want certain actions to occur to their benefit, and non-actions have no impact on anyone (their status before and after is identical). Government marriage rules are an explicit stamp of societal approval on whatever arrangements are included. As such, they are a matter of equal privileges not equal rights. The 14th amendment is still relevant in any case, it's only the rhetoric that many gay marriage supporters use that I object to, such as your comment here.
I'd rather the government get out of the marriage business altogether. Since I can't have that, I'll support gay marriage.
It allows other private entities to provide whatever information they see fit, because they are also protected by it.
Maybe sugar has healing properties? It actually seems a little plausible to me that adding some simple sugars to your digestive system might help your gut out.