Keeping an open mind and focusing on the data rather than other people's analyses of it? If temperatures are going up and humans are producing chemicals that are chemically capable of causing global warming, that just means that temperatures are going up and humans are producing chemicals that are capable of causeing global warming. Unless the link can be measured, it's not necessarily there, eh.
Are these models mathematical approximations based on the assumption that a small-scale system (room full of CO2 with a heat lamp type thing) behaves in the same manner as large scale system (atmosphere full of CO2 with a giant ball of nuclear fusion shining on it type thing)? And what specific assumptions were made regarding the larger system?
The word "model" makes me a bit uncomfortable, here, because it conjures up images of computer climate modelling, which seems to skip all the steps between dimensional analysis and entering data points. Would be good to know what empirically verified data you're working with, so I'm not stuck with this impression.
(1) there has never been any doubt that human activities contribute to global warming. The only point of contention is wether an alteration of our current activities would cause a significant change in the rate of global warming, and wether, if this is the case, we should attempt to do so.
(2)Consensus has nothing to do with truth... unless you subscribe to the WOD view of the universe, in which case we could fix all our problems by believing at them really hard.
Good to know that human foolishness is once again aligned in a predictable direction, though.
THESE distracted children learned how to read. Remember back in the day when the main thing distracting kids was football (either kind)?
....Not that I'm saying I have a thing against this nation's janitors and lifetime walmart cashiers. I suppose somebody is taking care of it, and it isn't me.
Then again, I doubt that the grades are going to go UP when the worlds children are universally trained never to use proper nouns, quotation marks, or numeral characters.
Come on, i'm sure you've at least once used a spellchecker on default settings. Ick.
The main reason we put these fellows in charge of running things is that they're supposed to be capable administrators.
One of the main things that makes a capable administrator is being able to communicate information clearly to investors (us) and underlings (government officials).
I submit that if he presented his claims in a way that would be easily misinterpreted, it's a failure of his communication skill, and that makes him a bit too incompetent for the position he was seeking, eh?
"The only thing unified or monolithic about religion is the opinions of those who think it's a conspiracy."
The moral values thing has been misinterpreted profusely. All a moral values vote means is that one candidate's behavior was consistent and therefore predictable, while the other was not. This wasn't too suprising, as one was historically a governor, a "front man" position that involves holding firm stances, and one was a senator, a highly political position that involves a lot of give and take and compromise: things that result in a very inconsistent record. When presented with two choices one doesn't like (and no one really likes politicians) that seem about equal in terms of overall effect, most people will choose the more predictable outcome. Nothing more to it than that.
Also, you switch positions halfway through your little rant. Should we favor other countries interest over our own (ie not invade them when its in our interest) or favor our own over people in other countries (ie stop hirin' them durn furriners?)
Basically, I guess my point is that you might want to take off the tinfoil hat sometime and realize that there is no conspiracy to desroy your particular indoctrinated set of values. Many of us disagree, but it's not the kind of organized disagreement you make it out to be.
Uh... yes. How silly of us not to realize that all spammers have completely honest intentions and are distributing legal and useful products. By the way, could I have your bank account information? I represent this american millionaire who died in nigeria, you see, and i'm willing to ffer you a cut of his 263000000000000000000 dollar fortune if you'll just help get me and his family out of the country....
Slashdot Mirror
Keeping an open mind and focusing on the data rather than other people's analyses of it? If temperatures are going up and humans are producing chemicals that are chemically capable of causing global warming, that just means that temperatures are going up and humans are producing chemicals that are capable of causeing global warming. Unless the link can be measured, it's not necessarily there, eh.
Battle meditation.
Sorry, trekkies, but i'm afraid the good ship Enterprise is helpless against the might of the sith.
They could probably kill off the light siders, but that would only make them more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Addendum: Since when were blaster bolts lasers? They sure don't seem to move at the speed of light to me.
Are these models mathematical approximations based on the assumption that a small-scale system (room full of CO2 with a heat lamp type thing) behaves in the same manner as large scale system (atmosphere full of CO2 with a giant ball of nuclear fusion shining on it type thing)? And what specific assumptions were made regarding the larger system?
The word "model" makes me a bit uncomfortable, here, because it conjures up images of computer climate modelling, which seems to skip all the steps between dimensional analysis and entering data points. Would be good to know what empirically verified data you're working with, so I'm not stuck with this impression.
Only if you are equipped to judge who is equipped to evaluate the data.
(1) there has never been any doubt that human activities contribute to global warming. The only point of contention is wether an alteration of our current activities would cause a significant change in the rate of global warming, and wether, if this is the case, we should attempt to do so.
(2)Consensus has nothing to do with truth... unless you subscribe to the WOD view of the universe, in which case we could fix all our problems by believing at them really hard.
Good to know that human foolishness is once again aligned in a predictable direction, though.
THESE distracted children learned how to read. Remember back in the day when the main thing distracting kids was football (either kind)?
....Not that I'm saying I have a thing against this nation's janitors and lifetime walmart cashiers. I suppose somebody is taking care of it, and it isn't me.
Then again, I doubt that the grades are going to go UP when the worlds children are universally trained never to use proper nouns, quotation marks, or numeral characters.
Come on, i'm sure you've at least once used a spellchecker on default settings. Ick.
" Smear your opponent with a distortion, exaggeration, or outright falsehood."
You mean accuse them of being a lawyer or politician?
The main reason we put these fellows in charge of running things is that they're supposed to be capable administrators.
One of the main things that makes a capable administrator is being able to communicate information clearly to investors (us) and underlings (government officials).
I submit that if he presented his claims in a way that would be easily misinterpreted, it's a failure of his communication skill, and that makes him a bit too incompetent for the position he was seeking, eh?
"Woah, deja vu."
4) Someone was bored.
"The only thing unified or monolithic about religion is the opinions of those who think it's a conspiracy." The moral values thing has been misinterpreted profusely. All a moral values vote means is that one candidate's behavior was consistent and therefore predictable, while the other was not. This wasn't too suprising, as one was historically a governor, a "front man" position that involves holding firm stances, and one was a senator, a highly political position that involves a lot of give and take and compromise: things that result in a very inconsistent record. When presented with two choices one doesn't like (and no one really likes politicians) that seem about equal in terms of overall effect, most people will choose the more predictable outcome. Nothing more to it than that. Also, you switch positions halfway through your little rant. Should we favor other countries interest over our own (ie not invade them when its in our interest) or favor our own over people in other countries (ie stop hirin' them durn furriners?) Basically, I guess my point is that you might want to take off the tinfoil hat sometime and realize that there is no conspiracy to desroy your particular indoctrinated set of values. Many of us disagree, but it's not the kind of organized disagreement you make it out to be.
Uh... yes. How silly of us not to realize that all spammers have completely honest intentions and are distributing legal and useful products. By the way, could I have your bank account information? I represent this american millionaire who died in nigeria, you see, and i'm willing to ffer you a cut of his 263000000000000000000 dollar fortune if you'll just help get me and his family out of the country....
that they don't institute this in texas, everyone in the state would be broke within a month.