Aside from all the opinions on Powell's character, he's a Republican. And supposing Powell would take the job, why would a Democrat want to make a Republican the president of the U.S. Senate? Powell would tie-break for the Republicans every time.
As others have said, this algorithm is deeply flawed, if for just this reason.
Saying you're going to take away a feature, then backtracking, does not make you a hero.
Other analogies: 1) "Unleaded" gasoline. When unleaded gasoline came on the market, it cost more than leaded, even though lead was an additive. But the refineries acted like it was some new process to "remove" lead.
2) When a US federal budget is proposed that cuts funding for a program, then in the final spending bill funding is restored to the previous year's level (which may itself have stagnated for many years), and Congress acts like it added funding. What really happened is that funding still gets cut because it doesn't get adjusted for inflation.
While it's still news (because it negates their previous announcement), Netflix does not deserve to come out looking good. At best, it's neutral, because they're simply doing their job and nothing happened!
But all you just did was link to a book report by authors who only claim some type of conspiracy.
If the deniers want to be taken seriously, then they must (you included) link to other peer-reviewed research that supports their opinions. Just because you don't like the conclusion, doesn't simply mean the science is wrong. Bring your own science to the table.
It's not like the scientists are against more scientific research. If you can show with the same scientific rigor that AGW is not happening, then you'll be a hero. However, that's not what science is showing. Speaking only for myself, I would happily change my mind if I saw new peer-reviewed research that supported the contrary.
However, you didn't do any of that. Assailing NewScientist (who links to peer-reviewed research) by simply linking to an opinion piece that is selling a book is quite bunk.
I don't know what you mean by hilariously overpriced. It's cheaper than DSL in '99. And it's magnitudes cheaper than '99 if you compare price/speed ratios. For me, anyway, it's only a few dollars more than regular service.
Business class allows me to run servers. I get static IP addresses, my own tech support if needed, and an SLA. The ISP leaves me alone since I basically told them I'll be running servers. I'm pretty sure I'm in the last group to be throttled. With regular service, you can't run a server, don't have static IPs, no SLA, and have normal (shiver) tech support.
There are some ISPs that offer regular service that also allow servers and provide static IPs, but don't have an SLA. However, those charge more than what I'm paying now. So if you put "business class" on top of that, maybe that's what you mean by "hilariously overpriced"?
If ISPs would just come out and say "You'll get this low price, BUT you'll be oversubbed 100:1, so expect to be throttled to that during peak," maybe you'd be happier about going to a higher tier, and everyone would win.
My old keyboard was so crusted up with junk from years of abuse that I found myself struggling to depress most of the keys on the left side.
It's not hard to keep a keyboard reasonably clean. Here's what I do that helps: 1) turn keyboard upside down and rap it a few times -- do this over a trash can (or an easily wiped surface if you want to see how effective it is). 2) canned/compressed air to force out the rest 3) wet-wipe or damp paper towel w/ a little windex to wipe the fingerprint buildup off the keys And you don't even need to do this that often.
The only things that kill my keyboards are static electricity and obsolete plugs.
pretending that one can get a semblance of unhyped or unbiased science from NewScientist.com
Peer reviewed research is biased? Some people may hype it in ways that don't correlate with the science, but with the NewScientist links, you're free to follow the links to their sources.
All you seem to be saying is "if peer reviewed research supports a position I don't like, then it's biased." Show us "unbiased" peer reviewed research to counter it.
Unfortunately, it's remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects 'including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
You:
New scientist is NOT a peer reviewed source.
Me:
It links to many articles and many peer-reviewed research sources.
You:
... blah blah blah... Why would you be so against teaching some critical thinking with AGW as the topic?... blah blah troll troll...
Critical thinking is something *you* should learn. You've offered nothing more than "Nuh UH!" Put up or shut up.
For the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) deniers, start here: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed It links to many articles and many peer-reviewed research sources.
If you simply just say something like "no, it doesn't have evidence" or say something that the above link disproves, (and apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) you just MIGHT be a troll.
If you read the articles and are damned sure, cite your sources. And they better link to peer-reviewed research that supports the premise. Or we will taunt you a second time...
Wow. I'm not trying to insult you, but is English your first language? How old are you? There's obviously something wrong with you, because you're failing to read the articles and follow the links inside.
Why do you keep getting modded as flamebait? I don't think you merit a negative moderation.
Expanding on your topic: you don't need to be brutal and ruthless. You just need to be good at finding loopholes (and being able to take advantage of them, AKA, have money). It's a system where the more money you have, you get to keep yet more of your money.
Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.
Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.
BTW, if you're not familiar with how it works, deductions figure in *before* your tax rate. So, he likely has a much higher gross income, a delta that is likely much greater than his secretary's gross to taxable income.
If we go to a flat tax, there are two problems: 1) We will have to cut most of the budget. While many will jump for joy at this initially, it means that most basic services will be limited or scrapped. It will certainly idle a huge percentage of our military. And people don't stop to think that our Interstate system is *for* the military... Forget that, most of it will be cut too. States can't even maintain their own bridges (do I need links for this?), how would this be done without federal money without closing most bridges too. There won't be subsidies either, but guess what? Every industry gets subsidies, and would immediately tank without them. People don't seem to have any idea that cutting gov't spending on such a monumental scale means that every company is affected.
OR
2) We will have to raise taxes to an obscene level on the poor. Requiring poverty level people to pay 30-40% in taxes will bankrupt them. They don't have the left over funds! Rent, gas, food, and utilities are inelastic. They simply cannot go without. And they can't afford the membership at Costco or the amount of money it takes to buy bulk (or the space to store it properly). Asking them to move is pure comedy. Where will they get the money? And where will YOU get a laborer who will work for minimum wage?
This is high school economics, not even college level.
Here's what it really boils down to: people want a tax cut and damn the consequences.
The implications of this, as well as the causes, are still being debated. Are global warming experts just short-sighted alarmists? Are we heading for a global ice age? Or is the increase in global mean temperature having an effect on our planet?"
It links to peer-reviewed research while rebutting the myths we're tired of seeing perpetuated. It doesn't guarantee the horse will drink, but you'll soon find out who is in the closet and who is simply misinformed.
Only if you don't read them. Worried? You have yet to post a link that counters the peer-reviewed research that I've carefully linked. In fact, you're a bit short on posting any links at all.
It's probably best you drop out, since you're not contributing anything in the first place, other than "Nuh UH!" It makes you look ignorant. Challenge yourself one of these days.
For all of you who say that the polar bear population is increasing
Glad to be of service with a helpful link. Don't bother countering the deniers without a link. It turns into a "Is SO" - "Nuh UH" fest which just feeds the deniers. Shut them down with peer-reviewed research. Climate myths: Polar bear numbers are increasing
Can you tell me another way to use data mining to uncover a terrorist/extremist plot being planned online? Is there any other way to get access to data communications than to tap into lines carrying all Internet traffic?
Yes, the telco needs to put an appliance gateway that will only divert warranted traffic into the NSA room. These appliances already exist. However, our telcos are just lazy. With this setup one can divert packets based on criteria in the warrant, such as source/destination IP addresses, and can narrow it down by application and content triggers, if need be. I am *not* simply against tapping traffic. I just want a justification and for it to be presented to FISA for a warrant. Otherwise, expect more crap like Watergate and McCarthy era files (except we won't ever know).
2.
I would hope they have captured some of my packets that way they know I have nothing to hide.
What is your house address and when can I come over and set up video cameras? No? Then you have something to hide. I want that phrase to die a horrible death because it is pure BS.
No, I really want you to critically think. But you have to follow to the peer-reviewed research. Just about everyone commenting tonight is not linking to peer-reviewed research.
Many, like yourself, just crack wise and don't even bother with a link. I, on the other hand, link to informative articles and peer-reviewed research. The evidence *is* on my side. You provide none. And, unlike you, I have an open mind to new peer-reviewed research, no matter the result. This actually opens the world to me as I am comfortable with assessing my boundaries and adjusting them as necessary. Try it sometime.
There is no guarentee that your links are accurate
Can't really help a denier. My links follow all the way down to peer reviewed science articles. Where are yours?
You simply don't have that. Not in any of the links you presented either then or now.
Back it up. Else you're simply like a child trying to win an argument by repetitively shouting "Nah UH!"
And from the sound of this post, I'm doubtful that your able to make an informed decision yourself.
Once again, links?
There is no guarentee that your links are accurate and your presention... blah blah blah
Once again, links?
Katrina wasn't because of global warming, Mars and other planets aren't because of global warming, but you got one thing right
Wow, you need some readjustment. Right is wrong now? Yes is no? I got both of those right because they're in the articles: Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming Mars and Pluto are warming too Just keep on wishing you are correct. I'll keep filling in my BINGO squares. I'm almost done for this/. article.
"We can't do anything about climate change"
I'm going to get a soda so I can spit it out on my computer screen laughing. BRB. Back! I almost choked, but I can't stop laughing.
You *do* know that's the exact title of one of the articles? Right? RIGHT?:D I mean seriously, you're just yanking my chain at this point. There's no way you could be this...
That's your summary, but it's obvious you didn't bother to understand the article.
You: need falsifiable hypothesis From my link:
The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future - and indeed have successfully done so.
You: uncertainty From my link:
Where the critics of the models are both wrong and illogical, however, is in assuming that the models must be biased towards alarmism - that is, greater climate change. It is just as likely that these models err on the side of caution.
You: error bars From my link:
In an effort to be more rigorous, the most recent report of the IPCC has quantified degrees of doubt, defining terms like "likely" and "very likely" in terms of percentage probability.
You: cloud modelling is error prone
Most modellers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change.
You: financial market modelling From my link:
Of course, in some ways financial markets are much trickier to model than the climate, depending as they do on human behaviour. What's more, trading based on computer models alters the nature of the very thing you're trying to predict.
So... human behavior changes the forward prediction.
You take bullet points for your summary then refuse to explain them, as if they aren't addressed in the very article I linked. You then claim that these models aren't validated. Shame on you. Did you read it or did you just skim and not bother even following links?!
Here's another article to read from the same series (that was linked in the article I gave you, BTW) MYTH:Chaotic systems are not predictable And a quote from it since you likely won't read it through:
While weather and to some extent climate are chaotic systems, that does not mean that either are entirely unpredictable, as this demonstration neatly illustrates.
You: "week by week" That's called *weather* my friend. And this article even defines climate for you:
Climate, however, is the bigger picture of a region's weather: the average, over 30 years (according to the World Meteorological Association's definition), of the weather pattern in a region. While weather changes fast on human timescales, climate changes fairly slowly. Getting reasonably accurate predictions is a matter of choosing the right timescale: days in the case of weather, decades in the case of climate.
In actuality, climate modelling is more important than your financial modelling. Climate modellers are striving for more accuracy all the time, and making models more and more accurate with more data sources isn't "tweaking" as it may be in your models. Plus, *lives* depend on climate models, as opposed to your financial models. Someone losing a million dollars is nothing compared with a million people losing their livelihood, or worse, their lives.
Read through the rest of the article series, and follow all the links. Be curious about science. That's my best advice.
I'm not sure why I posted all that, except perhaps to demonstrate that we should be very wary of allowing politics or popular opinion to be confused with actual science.
While that's an excellent point that I also wish would be impressed onto the general public, people take this WAY too far and just dismiss everything that doesn't fit their world view.
It still seems you have some misinformation, or perhaps a lingering misunderstanding of Global Warming. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you're asserting that water vapor is more important that CO2 emissions right now.
There's a whole lot of misinformation going around. I'm not trying to target you personally. If everyone linked to good articles which cite peer-reviewed research, we'd all be better off. And right now we've got people on both ends not bothering. However, just because there are also some nuts on the anthropogenic global warming side, this does not disprove Global Warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from all the opinions on Powell's character, he's a Republican. And supposing Powell would take the job, why would a Democrat want to make a Republican the president of the U.S. Senate? Powell would tie-break for the Republicans every time.
As others have said, this algorithm is deeply flawed, if for just this reason.
I'm not sure why you were modded troll.
Saying you're going to take away a feature, then backtracking, does not make you a hero.
Other analogies:
1) "Unleaded" gasoline. When unleaded gasoline came on the market, it cost more than leaded, even though lead was an additive. But the refineries acted like it was some new process to "remove" lead.
2) When a US federal budget is proposed that cuts funding for a program, then in the final spending bill funding is restored to the previous year's level (which may itself have stagnated for many years), and Congress acts like it added funding. What really happened is that funding still gets cut because it doesn't get adjusted for inflation.
While it's still news (because it negates their previous announcement), Netflix does not deserve to come out looking good. At best, it's neutral, because they're simply doing their job and nothing happened!
But all you just did was link to a book report by authors who only claim some type of conspiracy.
If the deniers want to be taken seriously, then they must (you included) link to other peer-reviewed research that supports their opinions. Just because you don't like the conclusion, doesn't simply mean the science is wrong. Bring your own science to the table.
It's not like the scientists are against more scientific research. If you can show with the same scientific rigor that AGW is not happening, then you'll be a hero. However, that's not what science is showing. Speaking only for myself, I would happily change my mind if I saw new peer-reviewed research that supported the contrary.
However, you didn't do any of that. Assailing NewScientist (who links to peer-reviewed research) by simply linking to an opinion piece that is selling a book is quite bunk.
I don't know what you mean by hilariously overpriced. It's cheaper than DSL in '99. And it's magnitudes cheaper than '99 if you compare price/speed ratios. For me, anyway, it's only a few dollars more than regular service.
Business class allows me to run servers. I get static IP addresses, my own tech support if needed, and an SLA. The ISP leaves me alone since I basically told them I'll be running servers. I'm pretty sure I'm in the last group to be throttled. With regular service, you can't run a server, don't have static IPs, no SLA, and have normal (shiver) tech support.
There are some ISPs that offer regular service that also allow servers and provide static IPs, but don't have an SLA. However, those charge more than what I'm paying now. So if you put "business class" on top of that, maybe that's what you mean by "hilariously overpriced"?
If ISPs would just come out and say "You'll get this low price, BUT you'll be oversubbed 100:1, so expect to be throttled to that during peak," maybe you'd be happier about going to a higher tier, and everyone would win.
My old keyboard was so crusted up with junk from years of abuse that I found myself struggling to depress most of the keys on the left side.
It's not hard to keep a keyboard reasonably clean. Here's what I do that helps:
1) turn keyboard upside down and rap it a few times -- do this over a trash can (or an easily wiped surface if you want to see how effective it is).
2) canned/compressed air to force out the rest
3) wet-wipe or damp paper towel w/ a little windex to wipe the fingerprint buildup off the keys
And you don't even need to do this that often.
The only things that kill my keyboards are static electricity and obsolete plugs.
Peer reviewed research is biased? Some people may hype it in ways that don't correlate with the science, but with the NewScientist links, you're free to follow the links to their sources.
All you seem to be saying is "if peer reviewed research supports a position I don't like, then it's biased." Show us "unbiased" peer reviewed research to counter it.
I have not read your articles.
I got that far and stopped.
I was going to reply with something more substantive, until this:
Who needs peer reviewed papers?
Which then told me everything about you that I needed to know.
Where's your link to peer-reviewed research justifying your "radical agenda, house of cards" hypothesis? Or do you just believe it to be so?
Hi Troll. Here's your taunting:
You:
Feeding a OT troll.
From the submission (pssst! scroll up!):
Unfortunately, it's remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects 'including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
You:
New scientist is NOT a peer reviewed source.
Me:
It links to many articles and many peer-reviewed research sources.
You:
Critical thinking is something *you* should learn. You've offered nothing more than "Nuh UH!" Put up or shut up.
STOP!
For the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) deniers, start here:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
It links to many articles and many peer-reviewed research sources.
If you simply just say something like "no, it doesn't have evidence" or say something that the above link disproves, (and apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) you just MIGHT be a troll.
If you read the articles and are damned sure, cite your sources. And they better link to peer-reviewed research that supports the premise. Or we will taunt you a second time...
Carry on.
Wow. I'm not trying to insult you, but is English your first language? How old are you? There's obviously something wrong with you, because you're failing to read the articles and follow the links inside.
Because you would then see the parent article: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
Which then links to this article (like magic, see? tada!): Climate myths: Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
the above linked articles did neither and had no evidence connected to them.
Since *all* the articles link to peer-reviewed research, all you're doing is saying "Nuh UH!"
Where are *YOUR* links? Where is your peer-reviewed research? I provided mine.
Put up or shut up.
Why do you keep getting modded as flamebait? I don't think you merit a negative moderation.
Expanding on your topic: you don't need to be brutal and ruthless. You just need to be good at finding loopholes (and being able to take advantage of them, AKA, have money). It's a system where the more money you have, you get to keep yet more of your money.
Here's an article from last year:
Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.
Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.
BTW, if you're not familiar with how it works, deductions figure in *before* your tax rate. So, he likely has a much higher gross income, a delta that is likely much greater than his secretary's gross to taxable income.
If we go to a flat tax, there are two problems:
1) We will have to cut most of the budget. While many will jump for joy at this initially, it means that most basic services will be limited or scrapped. It will certainly idle a huge percentage of our military. And people don't stop to think that our Interstate system is *for* the military... Forget that, most of it will be cut too. States can't even maintain their own bridges (do I need links for this?), how would this be done without federal money without closing most bridges too. There won't be subsidies either, but guess what? Every industry gets subsidies, and would immediately tank without them. People don't seem to have any idea that cutting gov't spending on such a monumental scale means that every company is affected.
OR
2) We will have to raise taxes to an obscene level on the poor. Requiring poverty level people to pay 30-40% in taxes will bankrupt them. They don't have the left over funds! Rent, gas, food, and utilities are inelastic. They simply cannot go without. And they can't afford the membership at Costco or the amount of money it takes to buy bulk (or the space to store it properly). Asking them to move is pure comedy. Where will they get the money? And where will YOU get a laborer who will work for minimum wage?
This is high school economics, not even college level.
Here's what it really boils down to: people want a tax cut and damn the consequences.
The implications of this, as well as the causes, are still being debated. Are global warming experts just short-sighted alarmists? Are we heading for a global ice age? Or is the increase in global mean temperature having an effect on our planet?"
There isn't any debate. Read this:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
I don't care if people are tired of me posting it. I'm tired of people spouting baloney without backing it up.
I'm not sure why you were modded flamebait.
But, in any case, here's the article you should give out:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
It links to peer-reviewed research while rebutting the myths we're tired of seeing perpetuated. It doesn't guarantee the horse will drink, but you'll soon find out who is in the closet and who is simply misinformed.
Link wars are seldom useful or constructive
Only if you don't read them. Worried? You have yet to post a link that counters the peer-reviewed research that I've carefully linked. In fact, you're a bit short on posting any links at all.
It's probably best you drop out, since you're not contributing anything in the first place, other than "Nuh UH!" It makes you look ignorant. Challenge yourself one of these days.
For all of you who say that the polar bear population is increasing
Glad to be of service with a helpful link. Don't bother countering the deniers without a link. It turns into a "Is SO" - "Nuh UH" fest which just feeds the deniers. Shut them down with peer-reviewed research.
Climate myths: Polar bear numbers are increasing
Wow. Just wow. You didn't bother reading or following the links, did you?
And now you're just making stuff up. How can anyone take you seriously at this point?
That is one article with little to no evidence or proof in it against millions of scientists and a pre-historic event
Millions? You're a comic genius, Mr. Borat. Funny how I have another article that refutes you.
MYTH:Many leading scientists question climate change
Put up or shut up. Link or GTFO.
I have two things to say in response:
1.
Can you tell me another way to use data mining to uncover a terrorist/extremist plot being planned online? Is there any other way to get access to data communications than to tap into lines carrying all Internet traffic?
Yes, the telco needs to put an appliance gateway that will only divert warranted traffic into the NSA room. These appliances already exist. However, our telcos are just lazy. With this setup one can divert packets based on criteria in the warrant, such as source/destination IP addresses, and can narrow it down by application and content triggers, if need be. I am *not* simply against tapping traffic. I just want a justification and for it to be presented to FISA for a warrant. Otherwise, expect more crap like Watergate and McCarthy era files (except we won't ever know).
2.
I would hope they have captured some of my packets that way they know I have nothing to hide.
What is your house address and when can I come over and set up video cameras? No? Then you have something to hide. I want that phrase to die a horrible death because it is pure BS.
No, I really want you to critically think. But you have to follow to the peer-reviewed research. Just about everyone commenting tonight is not linking to peer-reviewed research.
Many, like yourself, just crack wise and don't even bother with a link. I, on the other hand, link to informative articles and peer-reviewed research. The evidence *is* on my side. You provide none. And, unlike you, I have an open mind to new peer-reviewed research, no matter the result. This actually opens the world to me as I am comfortable with assessing my boundaries and adjusting them as necessary. Try it sometime.
Another person who doesn't bother to read.
There is no guarentee that your links are accurate
Can't really help a denier. My links follow all the way down to peer reviewed science articles. Where are yours?
You simply don't have that. Not in any of the links you presented either then or now.
Back it up. Else you're simply like a child trying to win an argument by repetitively shouting "Nah UH!"
And from the sound of this post, I'm doubtful that your able to make an informed decision yourself.
Once again, links?
There is no guarentee that your links are accurate and your presention... blah blah blah
Once again, links?
Katrina wasn't because of global warming, Mars and other planets aren't because of global warming, but you got one thing right
Wow, you need some readjustment. Right is wrong now? Yes is no? I got both of those right because they're in the articles: /. article.
Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Just keep on wishing you are correct. I'll keep filling in my BINGO squares. I'm almost done for this
"We can't do anything about climate change"
I'm going to get a soda so I can spit it out on my computer screen laughing. BRB. Back! I almost choked, but I can't stop laughing.
You *do* know that's the exact title of one of the articles? Right? RIGHT? :D I mean seriously, you're just yanking my chain at this point. There's no way you could be this...
MYTH: We can't do anything about climate change
I just can't take you seriously anymore. Sir, you're a good comedian. Thanks for the laugh.
That's your summary, but it's obvious you didn't bother to understand the article.
You: need falsifiable hypothesis
From my link:
The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future - and indeed have successfully done so.
You: uncertainty
From my link:
Where the critics of the models are both wrong and illogical, however, is in assuming that the models must be biased towards alarmism - that is, greater climate change. It is just as likely that these models err on the side of caution.
You: error bars
From my link:
In an effort to be more rigorous, the most recent report of the IPCC has quantified degrees of doubt, defining terms like "likely" and "very likely" in terms of percentage probability.
You: cloud modelling is error prone
Most modellers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change .
You: financial market modelling
From my link:
Of course, in some ways financial markets are much trickier to model than the climate, depending as they do on human behaviour. What's more, trading based on computer models alters the nature of the very thing you're trying to predict.
So... human behavior changes the forward prediction.
You take bullet points for your summary then refuse to explain them, as if they aren't addressed in the very article I linked. You then claim that these models aren't validated. Shame on you. Did you read it or did you just skim and not bother even following links?!
Here's another article to read from the same series (that was linked in the article I gave you, BTW)
MYTH:Chaotic systems are not predictable
And a quote from it since you likely won't read it through:
While weather and to some extent climate are chaotic systems, that does not mean that either are entirely unpredictable, as this demonstration neatly illustrates.
You: "week by week"
That's called *weather* my friend. And this article even defines climate for you:
Climate, however, is the bigger picture of a region's weather: the average, over 30 years (according to the World Meteorological Association's definition), of the weather pattern in a region. While weather changes fast on human timescales, climate changes fairly slowly. Getting reasonably accurate predictions is a matter of choosing the right timescale: days in the case of weather, decades in the case of climate.
In actuality, climate modelling is more important than your financial modelling. Climate modellers are striving for more accuracy all the time, and making models more and more accurate with more data sources isn't "tweaking" as it may be in your models. Plus, *lives* depend on climate models, as opposed to your financial models. Someone losing a million dollars is nothing compared with a million people losing their livelihood, or worse, their lives.
Read through the rest of the article series, and follow all the links. Be curious about science. That's my best advice.
I'm not sure why I posted all that, except perhaps to demonstrate that we should be very wary of allowing politics or popular opinion to be confused with actual science.
While that's an excellent point that I also wish would be impressed onto the general public, people take this WAY too far and just dismiss everything that doesn't fit their world view.
It still seems you have some misinformation, or perhaps a lingering misunderstanding of Global Warming. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you're asserting that water vapor is more important that CO2 emissions right now.
MYTH: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
Here's the parent article to the article I linked for you:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
There's a whole lot of misinformation going around. I'm not trying to target you personally. If everyone linked to good articles which cite peer-reviewed research, we'd all be better off. And right now we've got people on both ends not bothering. However, just because there are also some nuts on the anthropogenic global warming side, this does not disprove Global Warming.
Obviously you didn't bother to read it or follow any links.
This one's appropriate to you:
It's all a conspiracy
Here's the main article with all the myths laid out. Not that you'll read it.
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
Specifically follow the links in the sections marked
What is happening now?
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
Polar bear numbers are increasing
The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
The oceans are cooling
What is going to happen?
Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
Why should I worry?
It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
We can't do anything about climate change
Considering many places are having record ice GROWTH
MYTH: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
Read the whole article.