I don't understand why I keep getting this kind of strawman argument.
Just because I know it will travel less than 1000 miles, doesn't mean I am confident enough to predict the location within 1 mile.
Likewise, we're all pretty sure the temperature tomorrow will be between absolute zero and the temperature of the surface of the sun, but I'm not certain it will be precisely the temperature predicted in our local forecast.
We've been over this. 10 years into the future is still well within the 30 years that it takes to define climate.
And forecasting one particular day each year falls strictly under weather, not climate. It seems you are the one who has trouble with distinguishing the two.
I did not conflate climate and weather. People like you just seem to assume I don't know the difference.
We can't precisely model weather patterns, despite such events happening at a pace that allows us to test the model daily, continuously. So why do we think we model climate perfectly? We've barely gathered enough data to refine the models, at all. It's like the first meteorologists taking the first 3 days of weather data across the world, creating a model, and declaring it good enough to push for policy change. Really?
So your not entering the bet will be your own admission that even you can make climate predictions ten years into the future.
I don't recall making any claims about times spans below the threshold for judging average climate. According to NASA, that threshold is around 30 years. So it is reasonable to consider the climate 10 years from now to be approximately the same as the climate today. Therefore, on that basis alone, I won't be taking your bet.
My claim was simple:
we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years
That doesn't mean we don't have any clue... just that we don't know with the precision that would require us to prepare for the certain end of humanity.
I'm not sure how you made the jump between predicting the type of distribution to predicting the parameters for that distribution.
Just because you know that the distribution of grades for any given year should be Gaussian gives you no information that can be used to determine whether future averages will be higher, lower, or remain constant. If the average GPA in New York is 3.1 this year, what will it be in the year 2115? That is the kind of question we are attempting to answer.
What the heck? I've been told that the science is settled. Therefore the models MUST be accurate. Otherwise it wouldn't be settled.
Science is never settled, at least not until all the answers are known. Considering we don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow, or whether it will rain at my house, I'm pretty sure we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years. So, not settled in my book.
We have to be very careful about assuming that models are always correct. Slashdot ran a recent post about this exact issue, where Ebola models predicted much higher numbers than actually occurred.
Models attempt to predict but they can be flawed. Many are not capable of determining causation. I mean, we could argue that we should always assume the worst case scenario, but in the real world that could cost many trillions of dollars between now and the prediction timeframe. If the models are wrong, we may have wasted money that could have better been used to reduce the impact of problems we are certain of, like world hunger and wars.
I for one would like to enact reasonable regulations to reduce the chance of global warming. But I don't want to put a significant burden on any industry or group of people just because someone claims their model predicts the end of time, unless they have backed up their claims in substantial ways. Until then, let's focus on regulations that are least likely to impact our lives and industry.
I suppose you could make a similar argument about having one chief executive.
I mean, why couldn't we (US) elect the cabinet members? And why couldn't they have the authority to issue all executive actions? (We could still have a President, but his/her role could simply be to act as an arbitrator between cabinet members... more or less, having veto authority over executive actions taken by cabinet members, but without direct power to order any action.)
And here it is, the reality of popular open source software. People bitch just as much about it as they do proprietary software.
"You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much... nobody is really going to do anything except complain. (Well, except that one guy who is now going to make it his life work to fork it into something he calls Freefox that gets used by around 53 people... but those 53 people are very happy about it.)
Most of the powers the government has need to be eliminated
Everyone has a different opinion on what is meant by "most" here. So the ideal in a society where everyone's opinion matters, is to vote on which powers to grant and whom to grant them to.
I think the best thing society can do is to separate powers, so that they don't all fall to one person or to a close-knit group of people. This is why I support pulling more powers to the state and local government levels (in the United States), so that less power is concentrated in Washington.
It's not that the federal government isn't made up of elected representatives. It's that after they are in office, they spend so much time at the federal level, with each other, such that their focus is on national politics instead of the people who granted them power.
What's your solution then? We've tried the government truly being separate from the people. We've tried having the government made up of the people and elected by the people. What else is there?
(Well, besides "no government at all"... because anyone who actually thinks anarchy will work smoothly without eventually standing up some type of authoritative stabilizing body is a bit too crazy for my taste.)
As N grows larger, controlling N parties or factions becomes more difficult.
So, 3 parties is better than 2. If you are suggesting we not stop at 3, then I'm with you. If for some reason you are suggesting that we give up, that we might as well give all control to one party, all I can do is completely disagree.
(I post this pretty much every time the subject of third parties comes up, but I feel that it's really worth getting people to understand why we as a society can't get what we actually want despite society being built on the principles of democracy.)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why I keep getting this kind of strawman argument.
Just because I know it will travel less than 1000 miles, doesn't mean I am confident enough to predict the location within 1 mile.
Likewise, we're all pretty sure the temperature tomorrow will be between absolute zero and the temperature of the surface of the sun, but I'm not certain it will be precisely the temperature predicted in our local forecast.
I have made up my mind: you have no clue.
We've been over this. 10 years into the future is still well within the 30 years that it takes to define climate.
And forecasting one particular day each year falls strictly under weather, not climate. It seems you are the one who has trouble with distinguishing the two.
I did not conflate climate and weather. People like you just seem to assume I don't know the difference.
We can't precisely model weather patterns, despite such events happening at a pace that allows us to test the model daily, continuously. So why do we think we model climate perfectly? We've barely gathered enough data to refine the models, at all. It's like the first meteorologists taking the first 3 days of weather data across the world, creating a model, and declaring it good enough to push for policy change. Really?
If I put a bottle in the ocean, I don't know how far it will travel by tomorrow. I also don't know how far it will have traveled in 100 years.
So your not entering the bet will be your own admission that even you can make climate predictions ten years into the future.
I don't recall making any claims about times spans below the threshold for judging average climate. According to NASA, that threshold is around 30 years. So it is reasonable to consider the climate 10 years from now to be approximately the same as the climate today. Therefore, on that basis alone, I won't be taking your bet.
My claim was simple:
we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years
That doesn't mean we don't have any clue... just that we don't know with the precision that would require us to prepare for the certain end of humanity.
I'm not sure how you made the jump between predicting the type of distribution to predicting the parameters for that distribution.
Just because you know that the distribution of grades for any given year should be Gaussian gives you no information that can be used to determine whether future averages will be higher, lower, or remain constant. If the average GPA in New York is 3.1 this year, what will it be in the year 2115? That is the kind of question we are attempting to answer.
What the heck? I've been told that the science is settled. Therefore the models MUST be accurate. Otherwise it wouldn't be settled.
Science is never settled, at least not until all the answers are known. Considering we don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow, or whether it will rain at my house, I'm pretty sure we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years. So, not settled in my book.
We have to be very careful about assuming that models are always correct. Slashdot ran a recent post about this exact issue, where Ebola models predicted much higher numbers than actually occurred.
Models attempt to predict but they can be flawed. Many are not capable of determining causation. I mean, we could argue that we should always assume the worst case scenario, but in the real world that could cost many trillions of dollars between now and the prediction timeframe. If the models are wrong, we may have wasted money that could have better been used to reduce the impact of problems we are certain of, like world hunger and wars.
I for one would like to enact reasonable regulations to reduce the chance of global warming. But I don't want to put a significant burden on any industry or group of people just because someone claims their model predicts the end of time, unless they have backed up their claims in substantial ways. Until then, let's focus on regulations that are least likely to impact our lives and industry.
You don't seem to realize that you simultaneously responded to the parent and grandparent posts. The first paragraph is in quotation marks.
I suppose you could make a similar argument about having one chief executive.
I mean, why couldn't we (US) elect the cabinet members? And why couldn't they have the authority to issue all executive actions? (We could still have a President, but his/her role could simply be to act as an arbitrator between cabinet members... more or less, having veto authority over executive actions taken by cabinet members, but without direct power to order any action.)
Ok, fine, some number* of people are very happy about it.
* some number that is insignificantly different from 53
And here it is, the reality of popular open source software. People bitch just as much about it as they do proprietary software.
"You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much... nobody is really going to do anything except complain. (Well, except that one guy who is now going to make it his life work to fork it into something he calls Freefox that gets used by around 53 people... but those 53 people are very happy about it.)
Perhaps the gateway was melted by global warming.
Ooh I can post links too!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
The "agenda" is to take the results from this study, and other studies or charts or spreadsheets or whatever, and act like we know whether
1) These climate changes are caused by mankind.
2) More importantly, whether mankind can reverse the changes through targeted intervention.
Neither of which is in any way shown by studies such as this.
And brace yourself for robotic surveys and sales calls that sound uncannily like real people.
I'm not too worried, I immediately hang up on the real people too.
On my machine (I've tried in Chrome, Firefox, and IE) it shows a Youtube video below each section heading.
The playlist can also be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/playli...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
I'm pretty sure her husband would be surprised.
"Yo Google, I’m really happy for you, Imma let you finish but Bing had one of the best search rankings of all time!"
The problem then comes down to this:
Most of the powers the government has need to be eliminated
Everyone has a different opinion on what is meant by "most" here. So the ideal in a society where everyone's opinion matters, is to vote on which powers to grant and whom to grant them to.
I think the best thing society can do is to separate powers, so that they don't all fall to one person or to a close-knit group of people. This is why I support pulling more powers to the state and local government levels (in the United States), so that less power is concentrated in Washington.
It's not that the federal government isn't made up of elected representatives. It's that after they are in office, they spend so much time at the federal level, with each other, such that their focus is on national politics instead of the people who granted them power.
What's your solution then? We've tried the government truly being separate from the people. We've tried having the government made up of the people and elected by the people. What else is there?
(Well, besides "no government at all"... because anyone who actually thinks anarchy will work smoothly without eventually standing up some type of authoritative stabilizing body is a bit too crazy for my taste.)
As N grows larger, controlling N parties or factions becomes more difficult.
So, 3 parties is better than 2. If you are suggesting we not stop at 3, then I'm with you. If for some reason you are suggesting that we give up, that we might as well give all control to one party, all I can do is completely disagree.
My favorite explanation for those interested to learn more about what you are talking about.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...
(I post this pretty much every time the subject of third parties comes up, but I feel that it's really worth getting people to understand why we as a society can't get what we actually want despite society being built on the principles of democracy.)
Heh... "mostly split"... my bad, meant to edit that.
Speaking of... can Slashdot hire someone to add an Edit feature?
I am totally, completely in favor of building up a third party to rival these two.
Speaking of parties, here is the count:
YEAs: 67 (D = 43, R = 23, I = 1)
NAYs: 32 (D = 1, R = 30, I = 1)
Not voting: 1 (R)
Republicans were slightly more against the bill, Democrats were overwhelmingly in favor of it, and the two Independents were mostly split.