Life on Earth evolved likely from the various earliest stages based on organic (carbon-based) chemistry. While silicon is similar to carbon in a lot of ways, it also tends to create much more stable molecules, which are less reactive overall, so it would strike me that carbon would be the more likely base for any kind of proto-organisms.
First paragraph translation: I hate that scientists know more than engineers. Stupid scientists and their stupid expertise!
Second paragraph translation: You've provided evidence that climate is changing! That makes you stupid, because you disagree with my denial! Stupid evidence!
But Newton wasn't wrong. He just wasn't right for all possible scenarios. For most non-relativistic problems, Newtonian mechanics is still used. Nobody uses relativistic equations to put a satellite into orbit, or even send a probe to Mars.
In other words, Einstein didn't falsify Newton at all. What he did was take Newtonian physics and subsume it into relativistic physics.
Can you provide a citation in peer reviewed or primary literature where climatologists and other atmospheric and oceanic experts declare AGW will "make the entire earth unfit for human life"? Go on, provide a list. I think, since you seem to know so much about AGW, that you could easily come up with ten of these citations.
Or are you just making shit up, lying through intense ignorance or out of deliberate desire to mislead?
The irony is that most people are already paying for it. Anybody that gets any kind of property insurance right now is already paying for the costs of global warming due to property damage from flooding, coastal inundation and the like, and the costs are only set to go up. When you start seeing food prices going up as more land becomes less arable due to droughts, anyone currently not paying will end up paying as well.
The whole "catastrophic" thing is a bit of a fudge anyways. No researchers that I'm aware of are saying "humanity will be threatened". That's not to say that some populations, those who live in marginal areas or where conditions are such that any long term change in, say, rain belt behavior or glacier melt, could very well be at risk. But the way pseudo-skeptics talk about it, they act as if those evil lying climatologists are insisting the surface of the planet will go molten.
In reality, the whole "catastrophic" claim is just a strawman. It's a standard tactic of contrarians to restate the theory they are attacking in the most hyperbolic terms, and then declare "You see, those vile scientists are making nonsensical predictions!" Of course, since most of the people who repeat those claims know absolutely nothing about climatology or AGW analysis and modeling, they eagerly pick up on it. In part, I think it is a contrarian bent to be found among conservatives and libertarians, and in part it's because I think many of the deniers are just selfish cowards who don't want to hear bad news, and most certainly don't want to change today's behavior for tomorrow's problem.
Every form of energy production will inevitably have a negative impact. The issue becomes which impacts are the worst? I'd say using fossil fuels to produce energy are by far the dirtiest in terms of pollution (burning coal, apart from all the typical nasty chemical compounds, also releases a helluva lot of radiation), and in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (though, ironically, at least in the short term, so does hydroelectric where reservoirs are created by flooding land).
I think nuclear is part of the solution, but it may not be suitable in all areas, and you ultimately will have some pretty dangerous byproducts that you have to figure out what to do with (not to mention that certain types of reactors in certain countries may raise nuclear weapon proliferation risks). One thing is certain, and that is sooner or later (sadly probably later) fossil fuels are going to have to be abandoned.
Poor little delicate snowflake. I'm so sorry the laws of physics don't line up with your world view. Why don't you go have a big ol' cry, poor little alt-right denier snowflake
If you really want to fix presidential elections, you need to convince most or all of the states to reform how electors are elected. Imagine if electors were chosen by ranked or proportional voting, as opposed to the winner take all of all but two of the states? It's possible that even under such a scenario Trump would have won, but it would have been a closer thing.
I do agree with this. If there is reforms to be done to the Electoral College, each state is quite capable of altering the way the electors are selected. If they wanted to go to a more proportional system, that would be up to each state. But seeing as big states like California and New York seem to have little desire to muck with how the EC functions within their jurisdictions, I see little incentive.
And yet both sides agree that health care is a huge problem. They may differ on the solution, but as it appears that even the Republicans are not so insane as to removing the pre-existing condition aspects of Obamacare, it strikes me that, whatever you think of the ACA, there are aspects of it that have become effectively touchstones of bipartisan agreement.
I think the reason he doesn't recognize this is because it isn't true at all, and is an example of how partisans on both sides attempt to demonize each other with hyperbolic and often pretty loathsome claims.
Trump won the electoral college. He lost the popular vote by a massive (and still growing number). Yes, he has every constitutional right to the next POTUS, but the idea that somehow his election means all Liberals are evil disgusting morons seems pretty iffy to me. He won because the Electoral College represents a sort of First Past the Post on Steroids, not because he represents some great wave of rationality.
And he actually seems to realize it, which is why he's backpedaling quickly on many of the hyperbolic claims that the GP is making. In other words, many of the more nastier Trump supporters are now finding out that he's not quite the Liberal-hater they thought. The fact is that Trump has only been a Republican of convenience. The GOP proved the party most likely to put him in the top spot. Historically he was your typical wealthy New York Democrat.
Let that sink in. Believe me, there are a lot of GOP congresscritters coming to grips with the fact themselves.
The final referendum polls showed it was a very close race, and the final result was largely within the error margin. Let's be clear here, Leave won by a very small majority. They may act like they had a profound and unassailable majority, but the reality was that it was a close thing.
All that deniers and pseudo-skeptics require is that there be an objection. The objection doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be rational, it can even be an outright lie, but the mere fact that there was an objection made furthers the notion of uncertainty, that the basic claims of the theory under attack are themselves being questioned.
I spent a number of years in my younger days debating Creationists, and I see the identical pattern of anti-scientists making absurd claims and even more absurd demands, moving the goal posts when those demands are met, invoking every possible fallacy, claiming conspiracies when all else fails, the whole drive being "I've read this objection, therefore the whole theory is false!"
Cite the margin of error and where it is seen as "huge", and more importantly where those margins invalidate the data. And no, a blog is not a citation.
All that pseudoskeptics require is a counterclaim. The counterclaim may be idiotic, it may even be an outright lie, but like the Creationists before them, the fact that such an objection, even if a lie, exists somehow makes an entire branch of science wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Translation: I have no citations, so will try to use fallacious strawmen and red herrings because I know I have absolutely nothing meaningful to say.
Jill Stein is a Democrat?
Wow, 2000 called and wants it's anti-OSS argument back
Life on Earth evolved likely from the various earliest stages based on organic (carbon-based) chemistry. While silicon is similar to carbon in a lot of ways, it also tends to create much more stable molecules, which are less reactive overall, so it would strike me that carbon would be the more likely base for any kind of proto-organisms.
Consistently warmer winters in an area isn't weather, you fucking moron.
First paragraph translation: I hate that scientists know more than engineers. Stupid scientists and their stupid expertise!
Second paragraph translation: You've provided evidence that climate is changing! That makes you stupid, because you disagree with my denial! Stupid evidence!
But Newton wasn't wrong. He just wasn't right for all possible scenarios. For most non-relativistic problems, Newtonian mechanics is still used. Nobody uses relativistic equations to put a satellite into orbit, or even send a probe to Mars.
In other words, Einstein didn't falsify Newton at all. What he did was take Newtonian physics and subsume it into relativistic physics.
Translation: My pseudo-skeptic misinformation providers don't publish.
Can you provide a citation in peer reviewed or primary literature where climatologists and other atmospheric and oceanic experts declare AGW will "make the entire earth unfit for human life"? Go on, provide a list. I think, since you seem to know so much about AGW, that you could easily come up with ten of these citations.
Or are you just making shit up, lying through intense ignorance or out of deliberate desire to mislead?
The irony is that most people are already paying for it. Anybody that gets any kind of property insurance right now is already paying for the costs of global warming due to property damage from flooding, coastal inundation and the like, and the costs are only set to go up. When you start seeing food prices going up as more land becomes less arable due to droughts, anyone currently not paying will end up paying as well.
The whole "catastrophic" thing is a bit of a fudge anyways. No researchers that I'm aware of are saying "humanity will be threatened". That's not to say that some populations, those who live in marginal areas or where conditions are such that any long term change in, say, rain belt behavior or glacier melt, could very well be at risk. But the way pseudo-skeptics talk about it, they act as if those evil lying climatologists are insisting the surface of the planet will go molten.
In reality, the whole "catastrophic" claim is just a strawman. It's a standard tactic of contrarians to restate the theory they are attacking in the most hyperbolic terms, and then declare "You see, those vile scientists are making nonsensical predictions!" Of course, since most of the people who repeat those claims know absolutely nothing about climatology or AGW analysis and modeling, they eagerly pick up on it. In part, I think it is a contrarian bent to be found among conservatives and libertarians, and in part it's because I think many of the deniers are just selfish cowards who don't want to hear bad news, and most certainly don't want to change today's behavior for tomorrow's problem.
Every form of energy production will inevitably have a negative impact. The issue becomes which impacts are the worst? I'd say using fossil fuels to produce energy are by far the dirtiest in terms of pollution (burning coal, apart from all the typical nasty chemical compounds, also releases a helluva lot of radiation), and in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (though, ironically, at least in the short term, so does hydroelectric where reservoirs are created by flooding land).
I think nuclear is part of the solution, but it may not be suitable in all areas, and you ultimately will have some pretty dangerous byproducts that you have to figure out what to do with (not to mention that certain types of reactors in certain countries may raise nuclear weapon proliferation risks). One thing is certain, and that is sooner or later (sadly probably later) fossil fuels are going to have to be abandoned.
If attacking pseudoscience is zealotry, I'll wear that title proudly. And if you don't like what I wrote, then don't read it.
Poor little delicate snowflake. I'm so sorry the laws of physics don't line up with your world view. Why don't you go have a big ol' cry, poor little alt-right denier snowflake
If you really want to fix presidential elections, you need to convince most or all of the states to reform how electors are elected. Imagine if electors were chosen by ranked or proportional voting, as opposed to the winner take all of all but two of the states? It's possible that even under such a scenario Trump would have won, but it would have been a closer thing.
I do agree with this. If there is reforms to be done to the Electoral College, each state is quite capable of altering the way the electors are selected. If they wanted to go to a more proportional system, that would be up to each state. But seeing as big states like California and New York seem to have little desire to muck with how the EC functions within their jurisdictions, I see little incentive.
And yet both sides agree that health care is a huge problem. They may differ on the solution, but as it appears that even the Republicans are not so insane as to removing the pre-existing condition aspects of Obamacare, it strikes me that, whatever you think of the ACA, there are aspects of it that have become effectively touchstones of bipartisan agreement.
I think the reason he doesn't recognize this is because it isn't true at all, and is an example of how partisans on both sides attempt to demonize each other with hyperbolic and often pretty loathsome claims.
Trump won the electoral college. He lost the popular vote by a massive (and still growing number). Yes, he has every constitutional right to the next POTUS, but the idea that somehow his election means all Liberals are evil disgusting morons seems pretty iffy to me. He won because the Electoral College represents a sort of First Past the Post on Steroids, not because he represents some great wave of rationality.
And he actually seems to realize it, which is why he's backpedaling quickly on many of the hyperbolic claims that the GP is making. In other words, many of the more nastier Trump supporters are now finding out that he's not quite the Liberal-hater they thought. The fact is that Trump has only been a Republican of convenience. The GOP proved the party most likely to put him in the top spot. Historically he was your typical wealthy New York Democrat.
Let that sink in. Believe me, there are a lot of GOP congresscritters coming to grips with the fact themselves.
My understanding is that the so-called "shy Tory" phenomena is more myth than reality.
The final referendum polls showed it was a very close race, and the final result was largely within the error margin. Let's be clear here, Leave won by a very small majority. They may act like they had a profound and unassailable majority, but the reality was that it was a close thing.
All that deniers and pseudo-skeptics require is that there be an objection. The objection doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be rational, it can even be an outright lie, but the mere fact that there was an objection made furthers the notion of uncertainty, that the basic claims of the theory under attack are themselves being questioned.
I spent a number of years in my younger days debating Creationists, and I see the identical pattern of anti-scientists making absurd claims and even more absurd demands, moving the goal posts when those demands are met, invoking every possible fallacy, claiming conspiracies when all else fails, the whole drive being "I've read this objection, therefore the whole theory is false!"
Cite the margin of error and where it is seen as "huge", and more importantly where those margins invalidate the data. And no, a blog is not a citation.
So, in other words there is no evidence of fraud in ice core measurements at all, and all that's left is rants about the IPCC
All that pseudoskeptics require is a counterclaim. The counterclaim may be idiotic, it may even be an outright lie, but like the Creationists before them, the fact that such an objection, even if a lie, exists somehow makes an entire branch of science wrong.
If you have actual evidence of climatologists committing fraud with ice cores for money, then provide it.
And how do you propose to develop and launch the satellites?