An Islamicist beheads a journalist. Since the beheading made the journalist shorter, and the journalist was shorter when born than before the beheading, he isn't dead. QED.
Same logic you used.
Wrong. The claim is that there is a systematic error, and that will show up in the data set. That the claimed error does not show up in the data set indicates that Watts' hypothesis that poor station citing is the cause is incorrect. According to his hypothesis, we should see a statistically significant increase in warming associated with areas where siting has become worse. We do not. As previous commenters have pointed out, Watts was a co-author on a paper that came to the opposite conclusion.
If siting were the problem, then temperature variance would track suburban sprawl and urbanization closely, as it would be a systematic error. It doesn't. Instead it tracks mountain regions with greatest snow cap loss, as would be predicted by AGW.
The standard is the "reasonable person" standard, meaning a single significant event is enough, as are repeated lesser ones. That means that some behavior is out because any reasonable person would understand it as being unacceptable the first time, while other behavior would take repetition, and some behavior would not be regarded as harassment no matter how often repeated without the affected employee communicating in some way that the conduct is unwelcome.
The question to ask is "would a reasonable person find this offensive, and would a reasonable person be hindered in their work by it, or conclude they have to put up with it in order to hold their job?"
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
Or briefly, people do not have to put up with certain sh*t to keep a job.
Same reasoning can be applied to racial discrimination. There is, in fact, a market for discrimination, however it externalizes its costs, and law suits represent how we tax that externalization.
Greenspan was keeping money eased in support of a war policy that the public voted for, repeatedly. This would not have become a housing bubble if the appropriate restrictions on mortgage lending had been put into place, as they were in World War II, for example. However the fiscal authority (that's Congress + President in the case of the US) had deemed that the "ownership society" was a goal and went in the opposite direction.
Greenspan was driving the get away car, but it was elected officials which robbed the bank. If you'll look me up, you'll find that I was highly critical of the situation even as it was happening. Austrians were not alone in being critical of the Fed, and sadly for their theory, they've been nailed to the wall for the last 40 years of "HYPERINFLATION FISCAL MELTDOWN." Sure, if you predict disaster every year, eventually you will be right, just as there will be another recession. But was the theory right when others were wrong? No. Did it offer better predictions that others? No. For example, Austrianism predicted that gold would lead other commodities, in fact, it trailed them. Austrianism predicted that the US dollar would collapse first, in fact, it is held up better than other major currencies. Austrianism prescribes austerity in the face of "loss of confidence" ask the Greeks and Irish how well that is working out for them.
All in all, a batting average lower than the geocentric solar system model, not a standard to aspire to.
That's a straight up lie. Presently there is a patchwork of rules on disclosure (e.g. http://www.propublica.org/special/fracking-chemical-disclosure-rules ) and no blanket disclosure of compounds and concentrations. Nor any easy way to find out what has been used in an area. A quick search on google turns up a page on proposals for disclosure, dating from this year, but no actual disclosure by anyone.
The talking point is true, your statement is point blank false.
"Methane concentrations were detected generally in 51 of 60 drinking-water wells (85%) across the region, regardless of gas industry operations, but concentrations were substantially higher closer to natural-gas wells (Fig. 3). Methane concentrations were 17-times higher on average (19.2 mg CH4 L1) in shallow wells from active drilling and extraction areas than in wells from nonactive areas (1.1 mg L1 on average; P
Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
Stephen G. Osborn, Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson
Let's go confusing the issue with facts: this study gave compelling evidence that NG wells contaminated drinking water, and were consistent with an increase in deep wells.
They've also predicted hyper inflation in the US for decades. Still hasn't happened.
And they were far from the only school to predict the burst of the dot.com bubble. They were also exactly wrong on the effects of monetary policy under Greenspan. There are plenty of etc. The best use for Austrian economics is to predict how gold bugs will invest, because a large percentage of gold bugs believe in it. Same for "Technical analysis" predicting chartists.
Yes, we are all in on it. It's a Saganic worship cult where we get together and chant "billions and billions and billions" in unison while solving partial differential equations.
Every attempt to prevent parties from forming has failed, precisely because the mathematics favor groups of cooperating individuals in politics, i.e. parties or factions in a one party state.
For example, the wide belief that there one celebrity spokesmodel for the set of corporate interests that scare a person less will behave materially different from the other celebrity spokesmodel when it comes to real policy, except on the margins.
Except that the costs of a modern army are high in political and economic terms. A decentralized com army can win if it can recruit a large number of essentially replaceable attrition units, and make the traditional army bleed expensive manpower and equipment. The trick is to have something that is cheap enough to put in many people's hands, that requires increasingly expensive response. Voting isn't this technology. Initiative is this technology. The problem is that consensus driven voting systems are easy to paralyze and easy to capsize, easy to corrupt. Initiative, which is why we prize it in the regular military, however, is capable. People with initiative get active as others become more paralyzed. They know when to ignore directives, policies, or orders, or at least they are willing to bet their guts on the proposition.
While one can imagine highly wired together individuals being better than unwired ones, there will be two likely roads: one is traditional military organization, with the ability to focus on some aspect. For example, you talk about how it is impossible to train everyone to everything, but with camera link, the medic can walk someone else through the procedure. It's been done by radio, it can be done by video even better. That way, as long as there is a trained medic in range and online there is someone with the expertise to lead the particular situation, not assured given combat, but more likely than having a medic there or one that can be expensively moved from place to place on the battle field. The second road is the ideological movement that uses everyone as a picket or sensor. The information can be filtered back to leaders and distributed. This means better response to tactical surprise, and the ability to cluster where there are targets of opportunity quickly.
Or to boil it down, the air-land battle on crank, or on steriods. Take your pick. But not Rutland Vermont with guns.
Fast democracy is actually how small unit tactics work today, the problem is on scaling this up to an army size. The gaps, which include the ability of larger organizations to capsize the organization of the army for other purposes, are easily filled with an idea that has been around for centuries: namely that you can trust decentralized organization if the parts are all simpatico on some deeper level. This was the idea behind Greek Democracy, and was outlined in Kant. Even Smith has a series of preconditions for market behavior.
Presently decentralized peer to peer decision making prevails in those circumstances where the cost of centralized decision making is far too high. Again, this idea has been drilled into in much greater detail, and in much better places than the Pedantic Monthly, which is showing up on Slashdot almost as much as Nature magazine. The Atlantic is not for nerds, and generally, is not stuff that matters.
Now waiting for the Atlantic fanbois to down rate these comments...
Slashdot Mirror
An Islamicist beheads a journalist. Since the beheading made the journalist shorter, and the journalist was shorter when born than before the beheading, he isn't dead. QED. Same logic you used.
Wrong. The claim is that there is a systematic error, and that will show up in the data set. That the claimed error does not show up in the data set indicates that Watts' hypothesis that poor station citing is the cause is incorrect. According to his hypothesis, we should see a statistically significant increase in warming associated with areas where siting has become worse. We do not. As previous commenters have pointed out, Watts was a co-author on a paper that came to the opposite conclusion.
AGW wins again on the data.
Of course we all know that using more capital letters makes your argument more valid.
It is the sacred duty of governments to waste money by giving it to the private sector. That's why these disasters are bi-partisan screw ups.
Remember, when you see the word discipline in finance, it is implicitly attached to the word "bondage."
The question to ask is "would a reasonable person find this offensive, and would a reasonable person be hindered in their work by it, or conclude they have to put up with it in order to hold their job?"
This is called "employment discrimination" and it is against Federal Law: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
Externalization is when one person enjoys the benefit, and passes the cost on to someone else.
Do not do unto others, as you would not want others to do unto you.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
Or briefly, people do not have to put up with certain sh*t to keep a job.
Same reasoning can be applied to racial discrimination. There is, in fact, a market for discrimination, however it externalizes its costs, and law suits represent how we tax that externalization.
Greenspan was driving the get away car, but it was elected officials which robbed the bank. If you'll look me up, you'll find that I was highly critical of the situation even as it was happening. Austrians were not alone in being critical of the Fed, and sadly for their theory, they've been nailed to the wall for the last 40 years of "HYPERINFLATION FISCAL MELTDOWN." Sure, if you predict disaster every year, eventually you will be right, just as there will be another recession. But was the theory right when others were wrong? No. Did it offer better predictions that others? No. For example, Austrianism predicted that gold would lead other commodities, in fact, it trailed them. Austrianism predicted that the US dollar would collapse first, in fact, it is held up better than other major currencies. Austrianism prescribes austerity in the face of "loss of confidence" ask the Greeks and Irish how well that is working out for them.
All in all, a batting average lower than the geocentric solar system model, not a standard to aspire to.
The talking point is true, your statement is point blank false.
And they were far from the only school to predict the burst of the dot.com bubble. They were also exactly wrong on the effects of monetary policy under Greenspan. There are plenty of etc. The best use for Austrian economics is to predict how gold bugs will invest, because a large percentage of gold bugs believe in it. Same for "Technical analysis" predicting chartists.
There were clear factions in ancient Greece, and eventually legislative power was removed to an elected body.
We keep trying to conspire, but, well, it is hard to keep any thing secret that the atmosphere is in on. The answers keep blowing in the wind.
Yes, we are all in on it. It's a Saganic worship cult where we get together and chant "billions and billions and billions" in unison while solving partial differential equations.
Every attempt to prevent parties from forming has failed, precisely because the mathematics favor groups of cooperating individuals in politics, i.e. parties or factions in a one party state.
For example, the wide belief that there one celebrity spokesmodel for the set of corporate interests that scare a person less will behave materially different from the other celebrity spokesmodel when it comes to real policy, except on the margins.
For the same reason that you perpetuate the myth that copyright infringement is a victimless crime: for personal economic advantage.
Should come with a short summary of the difference between Malum in Se and Mallum Prohibitum.
While one can imagine highly wired together individuals being better than unwired ones, there will be two likely roads: one is traditional military organization, with the ability to focus on some aspect. For example, you talk about how it is impossible to train everyone to everything, but with camera link, the medic can walk someone else through the procedure. It's been done by radio, it can be done by video even better. That way, as long as there is a trained medic in range and online there is someone with the expertise to lead the particular situation, not assured given combat, but more likely than having a medic there or one that can be expensively moved from place to place on the battle field. The second road is the ideological movement that uses everyone as a picket or sensor. The information can be filtered back to leaders and distributed. This means better response to tactical surprise, and the ability to cluster where there are targets of opportunity quickly.
Or to boil it down, the air-land battle on crank, or on steriods. Take your pick. But not Rutland Vermont with guns.
Presently decentralized peer to peer decision making prevails in those circumstances where the cost of centralized decision making is far too high. Again, this idea has been drilled into in much greater detail, and in much better places than the Pedantic Monthly, which is showing up on Slashdot almost as much as Nature magazine. The Atlantic is not for nerds, and generally, is not stuff that matters.
Now waiting for the Atlantic fanbois to down rate these comments...