"Lack of insurance coverage for full-time employees."
As someone pointed out, that's a lie.
"Low wages for employees."
Not all wages can be high, for crying out loud. Wages are a business cost. High wages, high prices for consumers. The point is increasing productivity in economy, not nominal wages. Otherwise you could legislate $100,000 minimum wage and everyone would be well off and happy and working little. It simply doesn't work that way.
"Products that are cheap in quality as well as construction."
They are good enough for consumers who buy them. It's up to them, in economic, political and moral sense to make the choice.
They save the money on it. Get rid of Walmart and you're left with expensive stores for the rich, which you would have probably complained about then as well, asking "and what about those who can't afford buying there?". Doomed if sell cheap and doomed if sell expensive? Is there any way of making it right short of nationalizing entire economy?
"Artificially low "Invade and take over" pricing with smaller communities, destroying local livelyhoods, then raising prices."
This layman's error, one of the most popular intellectual errors out there. It just can't stand serious examination.
"Attraction of the lowest common denominator to stores, bringing problems to the neighborhood."
You mean "unwanted element" people? How democratic.
Of course, when they show up in the welfare office you have no problem with them?
"Lack of benefits from the company forces the community to pick up the costs, which aren't trivial."
Again, as someon pointed out, that's a myth. BTW: "picking up costs" == "safety net". You wanted it there apparently to be unused? That's what everyone is supposedly paying taxes for. Hey, when you break your leg and ER shows up I'm going to tell you that you force community to pick up the costs.
Criticisms seem plausible at first glance, but they are false.
There are complex arguments that would be necessary to explain the issues involved that are assumptions of the maniac propaganda you mistakenly see as reasonable. Propaganda that is toned down != sound reasoning.
But they are complicated, tedious and boring. So it's unlikely you are going to investigate them.
Example: business cartels. Unions are really business cartels, detrimental to the workers as such in the widest sense, i.e. to wages and employment (high unemployment is in the interest of unions - workers need them when they are scared for their jobs, not when they can move onto another job). Evidence:
Walmart is a large employer. It makes business sense, selfish sense for unions to try to bash it into unionization. As unionization in the entire American economy is low, they are desperate for a convenient target to bash it politically and score points on top of it. Walmart has bad PR image, so unions decided to attack. It makes tactical sense.
Note: I am not defending Walmart. I merely note that their political enemy is no better. Walmart's selfish, but that doesn't make unions unselfish. They try to manipulate you by exploiting manicheistic (good vs. evil) picture that is very suggestive, but very inadequate.
Ecology: now that should be obvious. "Deep" ecologists would want just about any human activity other than berry-picking maybe vanished from this planet so it could sit there dumb and unconscious in its pristine beauty. But some targets are more politically apt for bashing than others, and Walmart politically makes good target, while individual drivers - voters - don't. Even though those are actually consumers that makes burning fossil fuels reality (the horror! the horror!) a result and enable Walmart to exist. Exterminate consumers and Walmart is naturally gone. So why attack symptom and not the cause?
Organic foods - isn't it obvious that it's a sort of cult really? Attacking Walmart is both self-satisfying for them and gives them publicity. No such thing as bad press.
Greed is not the only motivator - crankish obsession about some goal, like those of ecologists or organic food maniacs can be even stronger, mesianic in character. Ask sociologists about it.
In general, read Machiavelli and Orwell, plus some basic econ stuff, then you will be understand the issues involved - and no sooner.
I'm a libertarian, Dear Coward. Not a conservative. There's quite a difference between the two. Esp. social conservative vs libertarian.
And guess what - on top of not being conservative, I'm not even American.
So there. I don't even have the dog in this fight. But what was there in the original post was simply hatred of Republicans illogically tortured out of completely inconsistent argument, well, story.
I tend to believe that telco guy that he would not degrade the service to anyone - because it simply doesn't make business sense. The rest of clowns were there for a ride (representatives) or trying to parade their good intentions. It's sort of like Committee To Make Sure Water Evaporates. Completely unnecessary.
So I bet brighter repubs were sitting there, smiling, nodding and thinking "God what a pure waste of time, but for political reasons I can't say that".
And then this guy taking himself seriously tells the story in such a way that not so much "net neutrality" bullshit is the core of the story, but that lo and behold, repubs look bad. Amazing.
It's just political guerilla marketing. And you take it for real. That's dumb.
...basic and rudimentary. That's what makes it flexible. Making it smart and dandy would have killed it, just like overcomplication and elitism killed ATM. Bastardizing the network is precisely the best thing that can happen to the network. That's what it is built for: ruthless exploitation.
Regarding the existing networks for voice and video - they're held by incumbents. Moving to internet TV, radio/ podcasting / whatevercasting is more important for economic and political than technological reasons. And it's not going to be more TV, it's going to be something different, at the expense of existing MSM, bless their hopefully fiery deaths.
Christopher Hitchens says there's evidence they were actively trying to obtain it (from Nigeria IIRC).
I tend to believe the man, since he's one of the few journalists out there still having the spine. Even though he has not entirely shedded his leftie beliefs.
I have always found "fair and balanced" slogan to be kind of tongue-in-cheek teasing.
"Fair and balanced" is a conservative chutzpah designed to drive lefties bonkers.
It's like Reagan saying that formally trees pollute environment or people living in trailers live on permanent vacations like we all would like to. He didn't really mean it, he just was teasing the rabid dog, or the pack of humorless people who are so damn pompous. It's a code you can read only if you have a wicked sense of humour. I'm a libertarian, so I don't really have a dog in this fight other than I'm rooting for the defeat of leftist dog. But I can recognize conservative humor and chutzpah when I see it.
Speaking of misinformation, you have produced a stinking bit of relativism, though: there's only misinformation out there. No. It's not misinformation. It's a worldview, yes, with an axe to grind, but a worldview. An argument. Reducing it all to misinformation, or making some bug-eyed maniacs writing mostly leftist propaganda on Wikipedia and pretending it's all true because they don't do it for money (they don't, it's their obsession that drives them, not money, but that doesn't make their ravings more relevant to reality) is flushing your brains down the toilet.
It simply doesn't make sense to run war on your customers. All of you here got into paranoid mode. Probably because the broadly defined lefties are getting desperate: they're running out of real problems, so they try to invent imaginary ones and scare us all with them.
("Internet pricing and the history of communications" by Andrew Odlyzko)
In short, in earliest, old days of yore AOL (9600 bps phone modems were fun, I'm telling you. not. these days 38400 bps was broadband technology) and pretty much every ISP tried to get users to pay for bandwidth used or time spent on net.
It DIDN'T WORK. The users stubbornly wanted flat rate and that's it, even if they were not using it all, agreeing to systematically pay more than if they went with typical "phone bill" model. Come to think of it, it's crazy. And so the businesses went with it: customers demanded flat rate, they got it.
The standard economics has it that way:
"Although flat-rate continues to be the predominant form in which Internet access is sold, that form of pricing is unviable. Flat-rate pricing encourages waste and requires 20 percent of users who account for 80 percent of the traffic to be subsidized by other users and other forms of revenue. Furthermore, flat-rate pricing is incompatible with quality-differentiated services."
Something not entirely clearly understood in consumers' psychology makes us massively insist on flat rate for internet, though we still have little problem with traditional model of charging per minute for phone calls. It should be pretty obvious, shouldn't it? Flat rate, not paying for bandwidth used but only for available is exclusively an artifact of consumer's psyche. From standard economic viewpoint that works for water, electricity, phone calls and legal services, flat rate is wasteful and non-optimal.
P2P and Google and the like are the ones who gorge on that bandwidth, paid for by guys who for some crazy Freudian reasons are willing to pay for more bandwidth than they actually use. Economically, it's like allowing your phone company to bill you for using phone by other people. That said, there are such things out there: like people who buy gym membership cards and use them less than they intended (which is exactly what gym owners count on, thus being able to oversell their resources).
Now, Odlyzko has shown very convincingly why for complicated reasons peculiar to internet this is not the case for internet. Still, it doesn't have to mean that "stratifying" or "segmenting" the internet services could not help in its development. At worst we will fall back to the flat-rate, no-QoS, no bulk discounts model.
Suppose you go to gas stations and you are forced to buy only one type of gasoline that is subsidized and poor quality. Happy with the picture? So far we have been putting up with exactly such situation on the internet. Well, I for one am sick of it. Why not try smth new? OHMYGOD THE TELCOS ARE GONNA EAT MY ASS!
You're all a bunch of panicky sheep, pussies.
My God, what is it with you people! The net grows exponentially dumb these days! This is supposed to be the place for people knowing a thing or two about technology, economics and the world in general?! Is it contagious knuckledraggia epidemics? WTF?!
Yes, you conflate commercial profit-making with extorsion. Probably not deliberately, but you still do.
There is such a thing as Ricardian rent (using position privileged on market that was acquired via non-market means), look it up. The thing is, it applies only to land. Big landowners are in position collect Ricardian rent due to specifics of supply they control. Nobody else really.
Your ignorance is showing. That's not how economics works. When Wal-Mart moves into an area, especially a small town that is the commercial hub of a surrounding rural area (their favorite, really), they are always the largest employer in that area. Therefore, when Wal-Mart's wages go down, the prevailing wage goes with it. Beyond that, they are a taxpayer burden. Many Wal-Mart employees are on some form of public assistance, be it welfare or medical insurance or what have you, because of Wal-Mart's treatment of their employees. That makes life harder and money tighter for everyone.
Your ignorance is showing. That's not how economics works. When Wal-Mart moves into an area, especially a small town that is the commercial hub of a surrounding rural area (their favorite, really), they are always the cheapest retailer in that area. Therefore, when Wal-Mart's prices go down, the prevailing prices go with it, thus allowing consumers to save.
Consumer, ignorant. The consumer is saving more than the difference in wages between WalMart and non-WalMart employers pay.
That's how entire economy works.
Futhermore, Wal-Mart has the annoying tendency to totally throttle small businesses (clothiers, bookstores, electronics stores, grocery stores, any damn kind of store, really). So where would you suggest someone in the retail business go work in that situation?
The same place where obsolete farmers in 19th century and miners and steelmakers in 1990s went to work. Elsewhere, other branches and industries. It's not going to be painless, easy or pretty.
But you're always welcome to go back to situation when more than 80% of workforce worked in farming (before 1850s) and when average annual income of an American in year-2000 dollars was $280.
And don't even think about introducing Industrial Revolution. What, you want 60% of workforce to become unemployed?! Where will they work?!
Yes, the usual lot of shrills, psychos, maniacs and naivietes, all dying to be Messiahs:
- union mobsters, cynical cartelists, and feeble-minded naiviete dogooders - ecowhackos and econazies, running out of entities to smear (funny how they don't dare to criticize drivers collectively as evil) - more union morons - organic food weenies
To paraphrase Orwell, "the mere word 'Walmart' draw toward it with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."
Those people are not trying to undo real wrongdoing.
They merely yearn for something larger than life. They need a monster to berate. Imaginary will do if real one is not available.
Hussein has been known to hide stuff in there, and he has had more than enough time to organize that.
Consider: he knew that the attack was coming, PowerPoint slides and all. If he didn't know it, he wouldn't have been running in the last days of American operation.
Nobody in his place would have wanted to be catched with half-baked and not combat-ready WMD stuff on his hands.
Best to make it vanish. If during first Gulf War he was sending airplanes to Iran, for crying out loud, in the attempt to save them, do you think he wouldn't have moved or destroyed WMDs?
One could extend that to say that since NPR is run by a non-profit organization, NPR can put more emphasis on "informing its listeners" than the commercial news organzations can.
But it doesn't want to. It wants to be a Very Progressive Jesus. It can afford to preach given it's non-profit (formally).
Lack of greed doesn't imply honest motives. Greed can be replaced by vanity and pride, which are even worse.
Maybe that is why NPR does a better job of informing its listeners,
No it doesn't, it just has different sort of gospel - leftist - to preach.
Umm, the bill isn't to allow the telecomm companies to screw the people, it's to prevent them from doing so.
Rest assured they would find the way of doing precisely that. They have money = brains of lawyers and economists that can figure out how to do it.
You're not going to painstakingly study every detail of telecom law and systematically sue the telecoms if they do smth wrong, are you?
They will study every detail and design their solutions around the idiocies of lawmakers who most of the time don't EVEN READ the laws they vote on. In most cases the talking dog sez senator votes yea, senator votes yea. There were some mixups, where they mistakenly voted opposite to intent of talking dogs. Apparently many lawmakers can't even understand their own dogs.
Yes, it might be you will prevent some abuse, though in most cases that abuse is just a figment of imagination of a twat not understanding detailed interests and detailed actions of dominant oligopolists, who don't rape pets and steal candy from babies not because they have warm hearts, but because such particular actions don't make sense for them. But at the cost of introducing other market distortions and costs.
Gawd, I hate this time of arrogant, loud and brainless good intentions. And I thought we were done with it. Silly me.
Well by that reasoning we might as well do away with any fair-competition laws. The market will sort things out, right?
Right, true - market will sort it out - even if its solution is second-best, the parlament will come up with solution that in practice will be fifth-best. If not the worst of all possible outcomes.
The problem is that there are lots of markets that are skewed towards one of the market parties.
You're just amateurishly abusing economics of public goods and economics of welfare. This is bullshit. Look up Pareto or Pigou.
As reflected in the prices. Given that we, the public, are in last instance the ones who have to live with what the markets come up with, I submit that we have evry right and reason to set some restrictions on what type of market we wish to see.
Oh yes, let's have your and whacko's sentiments rule!
Our intents are pure and the goal is good, hooray!
Haven't we seen that before? Great Society? Stagflation? War on poverty that poverty won? Fuckups of New Deal? Breakup of Bretton Woods? Econ stagnation in Europe now?
How do you know that your regulation will not produce effects that are WORSE than whatever market brings? Is politics SANE and RATIONAL and WELL INFORMED in your world? Maybe it's planet Zurgundia where you live?
Your explanations are dandy in the mind of zealous, simpleton morons. That's the only place where they work.
Yes, there is category of market formations known as oligopolies, vertical monopolies or things like "market failures". So what. Political volatility and systematic errors that are standard element of basically all policies are per saldo even worse from my point of view. The cure is worse than disease.
The public have a legitimate interest too, which may at times set limits to what markets are allowed to do.
The public doesn't understand a squat of it all, and the feeble-minded morons in parliaments understand even less.
Uh, both Google and P2P users already pay for bandwidth.
Uh, they don't.
They pay more like for AVAILABILITY of bandwidth, limited at the top.
So they OVERUSE it, FREELOAD by using more than other users, say, granma whose only purpose of having DSL modem is accessing webmail page. Who incidentally simply don't mind up to a point thanks to consumer's psychology of flat rate.
It's all fine and dandy as long as we talk not much bandwidth. But this keeps down applications that carry really, really huge bandwidth. Flat-rate consumers who use below average do not mind paying more for bandwidth that they did not use and that is subsequently abused by P2Pers and Googles being freeloaders. That's it, however, they don't want to subsidize more than that. So they don't. So high-bandwidth applications like massive internet TV can't get the foot in the door.
You either troll or deliberately try to conflate various qualities of bandwidth together purposefully: used bandwidth or potential bandwidth?
With QoS or without it? What latency, what band, what cost, what reliability?
I suspect you're like trivial P2Per (hey, me too, I'm just not lying about it) who typically wants his habit subsidized and simply doesn't mind Google doing the same.
Who's bad party - TELCOS! ME WANNA OVERUSE CAPACITY FOR FREE, WAAAA!
Sure, telcos are selfish, cynical bastards. They definitely are.
But all this brainless shouting seems designed to conceal that shouters are selfish, cynical bastards, too - just this time you want to be on the freeloading side.
Yes, there are sound economic reasons to differentiate between various kinds of traffic - QoS is one of them for instance, buying USAGE of bandwidth (not top bandwidth) in bulk is another.
I think the impossibility of buying end-to-end bandwidth in bulk or "retail", with different latency, bandwidth and reliability in the current model is the reason the truly massive internet TV is still not here (I'm talking smth on the scale competitive to regular TV networks).
Check standard economics - bandwidth is a wide-area resource like many other resources.
Telcos have this rule of thumb - the link can be only two of the following three: cheap, reliable, high-capacity. Honestly, it's true, it's not conspiracy or smth.
The current internet model deluded the greedy fools into thinking you can have all three if you only force someone to offer it through "proper" legislation.
The result is that your IP service alternates depending on traffic between either cheap and high-capacity, but without guaranteed QoS, and cheap and reliable but without really high bandwidth.
When you pay the ISP here that me with various top bandwidth available (e.g. I have a choice between 160/320/1280/3270 kbps), but that obviously comes without end-to-end QoS. Which, honestly, I find more and more irritating. I would be more than happy to pay small amount of money for selected, QoS guaranteed access to e.g. selected internet TV stations, while the rest of my traffic would be regular service like we have now - no guarantee that IP packet will arrive, no info about latency, but it's OK for mail or Web.
What we have now is the worst of both worlds of commercial, profit maximizing and traffic discrimination, but with lousy quality and reliability of public good. That's what you get when you try to stuff various services that could live with different tradeoffs re latency, bandwidth, reliability and cost into a single standardized traffic without QoS.
ATM was supposed to solve this problem (it had built-in QoS), but it fell through.
We don't spend anywhere near 100% of our GDP you liberal tool. We spend less now in terms of our GDP then we did in the 80's. Get the facts straight. Of course, you're a liberal, so facts and results don't matter to you. It's all about intentions.
1. To begin with, I'm a libertarian.
2. Learn to read with comprehension: I said that the TOTAL OF COSTS that WOULD have been imposed by implementing THE SUM OF GOOD INTENTIONS would have to exceed 100% of GDP at all times - not that this is the case today. That is, what politicians and moochers at public teat would LIKE to see bought at taxpayers' expense simply has to be greater than available resources. And this is the case with "net neutrality" bullshit: they want to force telcos not to discriminate traffic at all and then expect that other things will not worsen, that is, the internet will either become overused because companies without enough profit will simply see no business sense to invest into expanding bandwidth and infrastructure, which will ultimately require subsidizing it from taxes, which again costs you somewhere else. But the proponents of "net neutrality" are either freeloaders or greedy fools.
3. Re supposedly lower fraction of GDP taken over by all combined levels of govt, I would like to see your source - because none of my sources has indicated smth like that. Even during Reagan times that fraction just more or less stopped growing, not fell. Clinton was of no help. Bush certainly is no fiscal conservative either!
Geez, what's the matter with people today, just shouting and not paying any attention to details. Politics has become pure shouting match it seems.
John Daly's evidence is absolutely compelling. Note that it has been presented at Royal Society and generally praised. It's a very thorough work, not some crankish confabulation. So far nobody has been able to present good argument why Daly's work was wrong.
Note the interesting censorship by the BBC reporters:
"... John Daly's interpretation has been dismissed by Dr David Pugh, from the Southampton Oceanography Centre, UK. Dr Pugh has gone over Lempriere's original work which had been buried in the Royal Society's archives. The Southampton scientist is now assisting CSIRO in their current research programme.
"John Daly has taken the mark, which is a nice clear bench mark, and said 'that is the mean level of the sea at that time', and it wasn't," says Dr Pugh.
"From all the evidence we know it was the high water level at that time - it's like the difference between mid-tide and high-tide. He's wrong." "
Daly's remarks:
" In rejecting the Ross testimony, Pugh et al. are essentially rejecting two items of information given in that narrative, not just one. They reject the notion that the benchmark was stuck at Mean Sea Level (MSL) as stated clearly (and several times) in the narrative, and they reject the method described by Ross, namely the use of previous tide data to arrive at an estimate of MSL.
Pugh et al. base this rejection on two grounds - the height of water in Lempriere's tide gauge (6ft 1in), as given by both witnesses who read the now-lost `curious little stone' and, the time given by one of them, 4.44 p.m. in Mr. Mason's version [4, 7]. That for them was enough to negate the Ross narrative both as to the height struck and the method by which it was struck, even though Mason reported the stone and the writing on it as being damaged. Instead they believe Lempriere acted alone, and contrary to what Ross said. But the above narrative shows that to be a risky option for Lempriere - "the Governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean." An order from your colonial Governor in the context of the British Empire of Victorian days is not something to be flouted lightly, and definitely not in a convict colony like Port Arthur where the authorities already had suitable accommodation for recalcitrants."
" In rejecting the Ross testimony, Pugh et al. are essentially rejecting two items of information given in that narrative, not just one. They reject the notion that the benchmark was stuck at Mean Sea Level (MSL) as stated clearly (and several times) in the narrative, and they reject the method described by Ross, namely the use of previous tide data to arrive at an estimate of MSL"
------------
See the trick? The original researcher (Ross) stated CLEARLY HE WAS MARKING MEAN SEA LEVEL. John Daly presented the evidence as well as described that in his paper. Dr Pugh has simply denied it, BBC faithfully reported denial ignoring Ross' own writing plus all the illogical problems with it found by Daly, and that was it.
It's brilliant people like you who think that the entire science of climate change study is based on (Paper A) or (Paper B).
That's how science works - it's not based on voting, but on being correct.
If there are 10,000 bad studies and a single correct study, the 10,000 in question gets thrown out, and that one gets accepted. If you don't understand that, well, you're mistaken. That is how Popper's falsifiability works: not much evidence is necessary to get the entire theory thrown out.
There are tens of thousands of studies, using hundreds of cores across dozens of timescales from dozens of locations, in addition to many other complete lines of study apart from cores.
...and all of them eithr having the problem of telling incorrect CO2 levels due to common error to them all:
"Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73C) contains liquid water[2]."
2. Mulvaney, R., E.W. Wolff, and K. Oates, Sulpfuric acid at grain boundaries in Antarctic ice. Nature, 1988. 331(247-249).
Repeating the same mistake 10,000 times is repeating the mistake 10,000 times. Not being correct just because you could afford massive propaganda.
Time for you to say a big OOPS. Come on, it's not a shame. Everybody's wrong from time to time.
And if you bothered to actually have read the paper, you would find quite an extensive bibliography of other works. Not just one single scientist.
What an extreme bit of ignorance of the science to pretend that there's only one relevant study of all that has been done - how creationist of you.
Making such remarks proves you're dumb, ignorant and obtuse.
Believe it or not, Jaworosky is in the extreme minority in the scientific community (just like those who deny evolution are in the biological community). Those who pick on a single piece of data and claim that it tears down an entire science practice the lowest form of scientific inquiry.
Quick, call the philosophers working on methodology of science and tell them that Karl Popper was a fraud!
Jaworsky actually claims the ridiculous notion that he can prove that the world is getting colder, despite even direct *thermometer* measurements to the contrary and the huge amount of glacial retreat.
Jaworowski said NO SUCH THING. He merely claimed that what he found INVALIDATES THE CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRABLY MADE. You're not thinking precisely. It's like reality is one way, and finding that the claims made of it are based on frauds and distortions. It doesn't even prove that GW is not happening. It merely proves that EVIDENCE YOU CITED is a fraud.
Jaworosky's theories were not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The were published in a magazine run by Lyndon LaRouche. I.e., his claims are a bunch of garbage that wouldn't stand up to peer review, because otherwise he'd have done it.
1. Attacking the credibility, not the criticism. Non-sequitur.
2. As a matter of fact, Jaworowski points out the articles published in NATURE. You obviously have not read the paper.
3. Global Warming gets talked about on NPR (or so I hear), which is even more damning than that total cretin Larouche picking some subject up.
The reality is that even if you don't want to compare CO2 levels to those 100 years ago, you can compare them to CO2 from 200, 400, etc years ago.
Modern CO2 is the highest it's been in several hundred thousand years, and it went that way from low CO2 levels in a hun
How about selectively OMITTING THE INCONVENIENT DATA THAT DOESN'T FIT? Here:
"I do not question the extreme nature of the summer of 2003, however, using the Pfister index, this summer would rank 3 only in June and August, the 2003 summer index so equals 1536, 1540 1616 and 1947. The first three hot summers are are notably absent in your reconstruction."
http://members.lycos.nl/errenwijlens/co2/errenvslu terbacher.htm
Come on! This is a fraud!
Note: this does NOT mean that global warming isn't happening: it may be happening, it may be not happening. What we do know, though, that such frauds as typically get published do not support the theory!
Slashdot Mirror
"Lack of insurance coverage for full-time employees."
As someone pointed out, that's a lie.
"Low wages for employees."
Not all wages can be high, for crying out loud. Wages are a business cost. High wages, high prices for consumers. The point is increasing productivity in economy, not nominal wages. Otherwise you could legislate $100,000 minimum wage and everyone would be well off and happy and working little. It simply doesn't work that way.
"Products that are cheap in quality as well as construction."
They are good enough for consumers who buy them. It's up to them, in economic, political and moral sense to make the choice.
They save the money on it. Get rid of Walmart and you're left with expensive stores for the rich, which you would have probably complained about then as well, asking "and what about those who can't afford buying there?". Doomed if sell cheap and doomed if sell expensive? Is there any way of making it right short of nationalizing entire economy?
"Artificially low "Invade and take over" pricing with smaller communities, destroying local livelyhoods, then raising prices."
This is classic myth of predatory pricing:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html
This layman's error, one of the most popular intellectual errors out there. It just can't stand serious examination.
"Attraction of the lowest common denominator to stores, bringing problems to the neighborhood."
You mean "unwanted element" people? How democratic.
Of course, when they show up in the welfare office you have no problem with them?
"Lack of benefits from the company forces the community to pick up the costs, which aren't trivial."
Again, as someon pointed out, that's a myth. BTW: "picking up costs" == "safety net". You wanted it there apparently to be unused? That's what everyone is supposedly paying taxes for. Hey, when you break your leg and ER shows up I'm going to tell you that you force community to pick up the costs.
Criticisms seem plausible at first glance, but they are false.
There are complex arguments that would be necessary to explain the issues involved that are assumptions of the maniac propaganda you mistakenly see as reasonable. Propaganda that is toned down != sound reasoning.
But they are complicated, tedious and boring. So it's unlikely you are going to investigate them.
Example: business cartels. Unions are really business cartels, detrimental to the workers as such in the widest sense, i.e. to wages and employment (high unemployment is in the interest of unions - workers need them when they are scared for their jobs, not when they can move onto another job). Evidence:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpla/0506005.html
http://right-to-work-laws.johnwcooper.com/
Walmart is a large employer. It makes business sense, selfish sense for unions to try to bash it into unionization. As unionization in the entire American economy is low, they are desperate for a convenient target to bash it politically and score points on top of it. Walmart has bad PR image, so unions decided to attack. It makes tactical sense.
Note: I am not defending Walmart. I merely note that their political enemy is no better. Walmart's selfish, but that doesn't make unions unselfish. They try to manipulate you by exploiting manicheistic (good vs. evil) picture that is very suggestive, but very inadequate.
Ecology: now that should be obvious. "Deep" ecologists would want just about any human activity other than berry-picking maybe vanished from this planet so it could sit there dumb and unconscious in its pristine beauty. But some targets are more politically apt for bashing than others, and Walmart politically makes good target, while individual drivers - voters - don't. Even though those are actually consumers that makes burning fossil fuels reality (the horror! the horror!) a result and enable Walmart to exist. Exterminate consumers and Walmart is naturally gone. So why attack symptom and not the cause?
Organic foods - isn't it obvious that it's a sort of cult really? Attacking Walmart is both self-satisfying for them and gives them publicity. No such thing as bad press.
Greed is not the only motivator - crankish obsession about some goal, like those of ecologists or organic food maniacs can be even stronger, mesianic in character. Ask sociologists about it.
In general, read Machiavelli and Orwell, plus some basic econ stuff, then you will be understand the issues involved - and no sooner.
If they could squeeze small ISPs and consumers they would have already bloody done that.
You assume - correctly - that in future they will have no sentiments towards whoever from whom they can squeeze their profits.
Why assume this is the case now or it was in the past?
I'm a libertarian, Dear Coward. Not a conservative. There's quite a difference between the two. Esp. social conservative vs libertarian.
And guess what - on top of not being conservative, I'm not even American.
So there. I don't even have the dog in this fight. But what was there in the original post was simply hatred of Republicans illogically tortured out of completely inconsistent argument, well, story.
I tend to believe that telco guy that he would not degrade the service to anyone - because it simply doesn't make business sense. The rest of clowns were there for a ride (representatives) or trying to parade their good intentions. It's sort of like Committee To Make Sure Water Evaporates. Completely unnecessary.
So I bet brighter repubs were sitting there, smiling, nodding and thinking "God what a pure waste of time, but for political reasons I can't say that".
And then this guy taking himself seriously tells the story in such a way that not so much "net neutrality" bullshit is the core of the story, but that lo and behold, repubs look bad. Amazing.
It's just political guerilla marketing. And you take it for real. That's dumb.
...basic and rudimentary. That's what makes it flexible. Making it smart and dandy would have killed it, just like overcomplication and elitism killed ATM. Bastardizing the network is precisely the best thing that can happen to the network. That's what it is built for: ruthless exploitation.
Regarding the existing networks for voice and video - they're held by incumbents. Moving to internet TV, radio/ podcasting / whatevercasting is more important for economic and political than technological reasons. And it's not going to be more TV, it's going to be something different, at the expense of existing MSM, bless their hopefully fiery deaths.
Christopher Hitchens says there's evidence they were actively trying to obtain it (from Nigeria IIRC).
I tend to believe the man, since he's one of the few journalists out there still having the spine. Even though he has not entirely shedded his leftie beliefs.
I have always found "fair and balanced" slogan to be kind of tongue-in-cheek teasing.
"Fair and balanced" is a conservative chutzpah designed to drive lefties bonkers.
It's like Reagan saying that formally trees pollute environment or people living in trailers live on permanent vacations like we all would like to. He didn't really mean it, he just was teasing the rabid dog, or the pack of humorless people who are so damn pompous. It's a code you can read only if you have a wicked sense of humour. I'm a libertarian, so I don't really have a dog in this fight other than I'm rooting for the defeat of leftist dog. But I can recognize conservative humor and chutzpah when I see it.
Speaking of misinformation, you have produced a stinking bit of relativism, though: there's only misinformation out there. No. It's not misinformation. It's a worldview, yes, with an axe to grind, but a worldview. An argument. Reducing it all to misinformation, or making some bug-eyed maniacs writing mostly leftist propaganda on Wikipedia and pretending it's all true because they don't do it for money (they don't, it's their obsession that drives them, not money, but that doesn't make their ravings more relevant to reality) is flushing your brains down the toilet.
It simply doesn't make sense to run war on your customers. All of you here got into paranoid mode. Probably because the broadly defined lefties are getting desperate: they're running out of real problems, so they try to invent imaginary ones and scare us all with them.
No, you talk horseshit. And I can prove it:
n ications1b.pdf
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.commu
("Internet pricing and the history of communications" by Andrew Odlyzko)
In short, in earliest, old days of yore AOL (9600 bps phone modems were fun, I'm telling you. not. these days 38400 bps was broadband technology) and pretty much every ISP tried to get users to pay for bandwidth used or time spent on net.
It DIDN'T WORK. The users stubbornly wanted flat rate and that's it, even if they were not using it all, agreeing to systematically pay more than if they went with typical "phone bill" model. Come to think of it, it's crazy. And so the businesses went with it: customers demanded flat rate, they got it.
The standard economics has it that way:
"Although flat-rate continues to be the predominant form in which Internet access is sold, that form of pricing is unviable. Flat-rate pricing encourages waste and requires 20 percent of users who account for 80 percent of the traffic to be subsidized by other users and other forms of revenue. Furthermore, flat-rate pricing is incompatible with quality-differentiated services."
Something not entirely clearly understood in consumers' psychology makes us massively insist on flat rate for internet, though we still have little problem with traditional model of charging per minute for phone calls. It should be pretty obvious, shouldn't it? Flat rate, not paying for bandwidth used but only for available is exclusively an artifact of consumer's psyche. From standard economic viewpoint that works for water, electricity, phone calls and legal services, flat rate is wasteful and non-optimal.
P2P and Google and the like are the ones who gorge on that bandwidth, paid for by guys who for some crazy Freudian reasons are willing to pay for more bandwidth than they actually use. Economically, it's like allowing your phone company to bill you for using phone by other people. That said, there are such things out there: like people who buy gym membership cards and use them less than they intended (which is exactly what gym owners count on, thus being able to oversell their resources).
Now, Odlyzko has shown very convincingly why for complicated reasons peculiar to internet this is not the case for internet. Still, it doesn't have to mean that "stratifying" or "segmenting" the internet services could not help in its development. At worst we will fall back to the flat-rate, no-QoS, no bulk discounts model.
Suppose you go to gas stations and you are forced to buy only one type of gasoline that is subsidized and poor quality. Happy with the picture? So far we have been putting up with exactly such situation on the internet. Well, I for one am sick of it. Why not try smth new? OHMYGOD THE TELCOS ARE GONNA EAT MY ASS!
You're all a bunch of panicky sheep, pussies.
My God, what is it with you people! The net grows exponentially dumb these days! This is supposed to be the place for people knowing a thing or two about technology, economics and the world in general?! Is it contagious knuckledraggia epidemics? WTF?!
Yes, you conflate commercial profit-making with extorsion. Probably not deliberately, but you still do.
There is such a thing as Ricardian rent (using position privileged on market that was acquired via non-market means), look it up. The thing is, it applies only to land. Big landowners are in position collect Ricardian rent due to specifics of supply they control. Nobody else really.
Your ignorance is showing. That's not how economics works. When Wal-Mart moves into an area, especially a small town that is the commercial hub of a surrounding rural area (their favorite, really), they are always the largest employer in that area. Therefore, when Wal-Mart's wages go down, the prevailing wage goes with it. Beyond that, they are a taxpayer burden. Many Wal-Mart employees are on some form of public assistance, be it welfare or medical insurance or what have you, because of Wal-Mart's treatment of their employees. That makes life harder and money tighter for everyone.
Your ignorance is showing. That's not how economics works. When Wal-Mart moves into an area, especially a small town that is the commercial hub of a surrounding rural area (their favorite, really), they are always the cheapest retailer in that area. Therefore, when Wal-Mart's prices go down, the prevailing prices go with it, thus allowing consumers to save.
Consumer, ignorant. The consumer is saving more than the difference in wages between WalMart and non-WalMart employers pay.
That's how entire economy works.
Futhermore, Wal-Mart has the annoying tendency to totally throttle small businesses (clothiers, bookstores, electronics stores, grocery stores, any damn kind of store, really). So where would you suggest someone in the retail business go work in that situation?
The same place where obsolete farmers in 19th century and miners and steelmakers in 1990s went to work. Elsewhere, other branches and industries. It's not going to be painless, easy or pretty.
But you're always welcome to go back to situation when more than 80% of workforce worked in farming (before 1850s) and when average annual income of an American in year-2000 dollars was $280.
And don't even think about introducing Industrial Revolution. What, you want 60% of workforce to become unemployed?! Where will they work?!
Yes, the usual lot of shrills, psychos, maniacs and naivietes, all dying to be Messiahs:
- union mobsters, cynical cartelists, and feeble-minded naiviete dogooders
- ecowhackos and econazies, running out of entities to smear (funny how they don't dare to criticize drivers collectively as evil)
- more union morons
- organic food weenies
To paraphrase Orwell, "the mere word 'Walmart' draw toward it with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."
Those people are not trying to undo real wrongdoing.
They merely yearn for something larger than life. They need a monster to berate. Imaginary will do if real one is not available.
Praise Progressive Jesus!
I bet WMDs are in Syria.
Hussein has been known to hide stuff in there, and he has had more than enough time to organize that.
Consider: he knew that the attack was coming, PowerPoint slides and all. If he didn't know it, he wouldn't have been running in the last days of American operation.
Nobody in his place would have wanted to be catched with half-baked and not combat-ready WMD stuff on his hands.
Best to make it vanish. If during first Gulf War he was sending airplanes to Iran, for crying out loud, in the attempt to save them, do you think he wouldn't have moved or destroyed WMDs?
One could extend that to say that since NPR is run by a non-profit organization, NPR can put more emphasis on "informing its listeners" than the commercial news organzations can.
But it doesn't want to. It wants to be a Very Progressive Jesus. It can afford to preach given it's non-profit (formally).
Lack of greed doesn't imply honest motives. Greed can be replaced by vanity and pride, which are even worse.
Maybe that is why NPR does a better job of informing its listeners,
No it doesn't, it just has different sort of gospel - leftist - to preach.
Umm, the bill isn't to allow the telecomm companies to screw the people, it's to prevent them from doing so.
Rest assured they would find the way of doing precisely that. They have money = brains of lawyers and economists that can figure out how to do it.
You're not going to painstakingly study every detail of telecom law and systematically sue the telecoms if they do smth wrong, are you?
They will study every detail and design their solutions around the idiocies of lawmakers who most of the time don't EVEN READ the laws they vote on. In most cases the talking dog sez senator votes yea, senator votes yea. There were some mixups, where they mistakenly voted opposite to intent of talking dogs. Apparently many lawmakers can't even understand their own dogs.
Yes, it might be you will prevent some abuse, though in most cases that abuse is just a figment of imagination of a twat not understanding detailed interests and detailed actions of dominant oligopolists, who don't rape pets and steal candy from babies not because they have warm hearts, but because such particular actions don't make sense for them. But at the cost of introducing other market distortions and costs.
Gawd, I hate this time of arrogant, loud and brainless good intentions. And I thought we were done with it. Silly me.
Well by that reasoning we might as well do away with any fair-competition laws. The market will sort things out, right?
Right, true - market will sort it out - even if its solution is second-best, the parlament will come up with solution that in practice will be fifth-best. If not the worst of all possible outcomes.
The problem is that there are lots of markets that are skewed towards one of the market parties.
You're just amateurishly abusing economics of public goods and economics of welfare. This is bullshit. Look up Pareto or Pigou.
As reflected in the prices. Given that we, the public, are in last instance the ones who have to live with what the markets come up with, I submit that we have evry right and reason to set some restrictions on what type of market we wish to see.
Oh yes, let's have your and whacko's sentiments rule!
Our intents are pure and the goal is good, hooray!
Haven't we seen that before? Great Society? Stagflation? War on poverty that poverty won? Fuckups of New Deal? Breakup of Bretton Woods? Econ stagnation in Europe now?
How do you know that your regulation will not produce effects that are WORSE than whatever market brings? Is politics SANE and RATIONAL and WELL INFORMED in your world? Maybe it's planet Zurgundia where you live?
Your explanations are dandy in the mind of zealous, simpleton morons. That's the only place where they work.
Yes, there is category of market formations known as oligopolies, vertical monopolies or things like "market failures". So what. Political volatility and systematic errors that are standard element of basically all policies are per saldo even worse from my point of view. The cure is worse than disease.
The public have a legitimate interest too, which may at times set limits to what markets are allowed to do.
The public doesn't understand a squat of it all, and the feeble-minded morons in parliaments understand even less.
Uh, both Google and P2P users already pay for bandwidth.
Uh, they don't.
They pay more like for AVAILABILITY of bandwidth, limited at the top.
So they OVERUSE it, FREELOAD by using more than other users, say, granma whose only purpose of having DSL modem is accessing webmail page. Who incidentally simply don't mind up to a point thanks to consumer's psychology of flat rate.
It's all fine and dandy as long as we talk not much bandwidth. But this keeps down applications that carry really, really huge bandwidth. Flat-rate consumers who use below average do not mind paying more for bandwidth that they did not use and that is subsequently abused by P2Pers and Googles being freeloaders. That's it, however, they don't want to subsidize more than that. So they don't. So high-bandwidth applications like massive internet TV can't get the foot in the door.
You either troll or deliberately try to conflate various qualities of bandwidth together purposefully: used bandwidth or potential bandwidth?
With QoS or without it? What latency, what band, what cost, what reliability?
I suspect you're like trivial P2Per (hey, me too, I'm just not lying about it) who typically wants his habit subsidized and simply doesn't mind Google doing the same.
Who's bad party - TELCOS! ME WANNA OVERUSE CAPACITY FOR FREE, WAAAA!
Sure, telcos are selfish, cynical bastards. They definitely are.
But all this brainless shouting seems designed to conceal that shouters are selfish, cynical bastards, too - just this time you want to be on the freeloading side.
Uh, uh, uh. Hiding something behind the Uh?
Yes, there are sound economic reasons to differentiate between various kinds of traffic - QoS is one of them for instance, buying USAGE of bandwidth (not top bandwidth) in bulk is another.
I think the impossibility of buying end-to-end bandwidth in bulk or "retail", with different latency, bandwidth and reliability in the current model is the reason the truly massive internet TV is still not here (I'm talking smth on the scale competitive to regular TV networks).
Check standard economics - bandwidth is a wide-area resource like many other resources.
Telcos have this rule of thumb - the link can be only two of the following three: cheap, reliable, high-capacity. Honestly, it's true, it's not conspiracy or smth.
The current internet model deluded the greedy fools into thinking you can have all three if you only force someone to offer it through "proper" legislation.
The result is that your IP service alternates depending on traffic between either cheap and high-capacity, but without guaranteed QoS, and cheap and reliable but without really high bandwidth.
When you pay the ISP here that me with various top bandwidth available (e.g. I have a choice between 160/320/1280/3270 kbps), but that obviously comes without end-to-end QoS. Which, honestly, I find more and more irritating. I would be more than happy to pay small amount of money for selected, QoS guaranteed access to e.g. selected internet TV stations, while the rest of my traffic would be regular service like we have now - no guarantee that IP packet will arrive, no info about latency, but it's OK for mail or Web.
What we have now is the worst of both worlds of commercial, profit maximizing and traffic discrimination, but with lousy quality and reliability of public good. That's what you get when you try to stuff various services that could live with different tradeoffs re latency, bandwidth, reliability and cost into a single standardized traffic without QoS.
ATM was supposed to solve this problem (it had built-in QoS), but it fell through.
...screeeeech....ihaterepubs ihaterepubs ihaterepubs ihaterepubs....screeech....
You must have been paid to produce this crap.
savetheinternet.com = political guerilla marketing
Geez, get better copywriters for crying out loud, that site is rubbish.
We don't spend anywhere near 100% of our GDP you liberal tool. We spend less now in terms of our GDP then we did in the 80's. Get the facts straight. Of course, you're a liberal, so facts and results don't matter to you. It's all about intentions.
1. To begin with, I'm a libertarian.
2. Learn to read with comprehension: I said that the TOTAL OF COSTS that WOULD have been imposed by implementing THE SUM OF GOOD INTENTIONS would have to exceed 100% of GDP at all times - not that this is the case today. That is, what politicians and moochers at public teat would LIKE to see bought at taxpayers' expense simply has to be greater than available resources. And this is the case with "net neutrality" bullshit: they want to force telcos not to discriminate traffic at all and then expect that other things will not worsen, that is, the internet will either become overused because companies without enough profit will simply see no business sense to invest into expanding bandwidth and infrastructure, which will ultimately require subsidizing it from taxes, which again costs you somewhere else. But the proponents of "net neutrality" are either freeloaders or greedy fools.
3. Re supposedly lower fraction of GDP taken over by all combined levels of govt, I would like to see your source - because none of my sources has indicated smth like that. Even during Reagan times that fraction just more or less stopped growing, not fell. Clinton was of no help. Bush certainly is no fiscal conservative either!
Geez, what's the matter with people today, just shouting and not paying any attention to details. Politics has become pure shouting match it seems.
Evidence:
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
John Daly's evidence is absolutely compelling. Note that it has been presented at Royal Society and generally praised. It's a very thorough work, not some crankish confabulation. So far nobody has been able to present good argument why Daly's work was wrong.
Note the interesting censorship by the BBC reporters:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/467007.stm
BBC version:
"... John Daly's interpretation has been dismissed by Dr David Pugh, from the Southampton Oceanography Centre, UK. Dr Pugh has gone over Lempriere's original work which had been buried in the Royal Society's archives. The Southampton scientist is now assisting CSIRO in their current research programme. "John Daly has taken the mark, which is a nice clear bench mark, and said 'that is the mean level of the sea at that time', and it wasn't," says Dr Pugh. "From all the evidence we know it was the high water level at that time - it's like the difference between mid-tide and high-tide. He's wrong." "
Daly's remarks:
" In rejecting the Ross testimony, Pugh et al. are essentially rejecting two items of information given in that narrative, not just one. They reject the notion that the benchmark was stuck at Mean Sea Level (MSL) as stated clearly (and several times) in the narrative, and they reject the method described by Ross, namely the use of previous tide data to arrive at an estimate of MSL. Pugh et al. base this rejection on two grounds - the height of water in Lempriere's tide gauge (6ft 1in), as given by both witnesses who read the now-lost `curious little stone' and, the time given by one of them, 4.44 p.m. in Mr. Mason's version [4, 7]. That for them was enough to negate the Ross narrative both as to the height struck and the method by which it was struck, even though Mason reported the stone and the writing on it as being damaged. Instead they believe Lempriere acted alone, and contrary to what Ross said. But the above narrative shows that to be a risky option for Lempriere - "the Governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean." An order from your colonial Governor in the context of the British Empire of Victorian days is not something to be flouted lightly, and definitely not in a convict colony like Port Arthur where the authorities already had suitable accommodation for recalcitrants."
" In rejecting the Ross testimony, Pugh et al. are essentially rejecting two items of information given in that narrative, not just one. They reject the notion that the benchmark was stuck at Mean Sea Level (MSL) as stated clearly (and several times) in the narrative, and they reject the method described by Ross, namely the use of previous tide data to arrive at an estimate of MSL"
------------
See the trick? The original researcher (Ross) stated CLEARLY HE WAS MARKING MEAN SEA LEVEL. John Daly presented the evidence as well as described that in his paper. Dr Pugh has simply denied it, BBC faithfully reported denial ignoring Ross' own writing plus all the illogical problems with it found by Daly, and that was it.
Do NOT trust the journalists.
Shit, one can't trust anything out there apparently...
Thanks for the link anyway..
It's brilliant people like you who think that the entire science of climate change study is based on (Paper A) or (Paper B).
...and all of them eithr having the problem of telling incorrect CO2 levels due to common error to them all:
That's how science works - it's not based on voting, but on being correct.
If there are 10,000 bad studies and a single correct study, the 10,000 in question gets thrown out, and that one gets accepted. If you don't understand that, well, you're mistaken. That is how Popper's falsifiability works: not much evidence is necessary to get the entire theory thrown out.
There are tens of thousands of studies, using hundreds of cores across dozens of timescales from dozens of locations, in addition to many other complete lines of study apart from cores.
"Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73C) contains liquid water[2]."
2. Mulvaney, R., E.W. Wolff, and K. Oates, Sulpfuric acid at grain boundaries in Antarctic ice. Nature, 1988. 331(247-249).
Repeating the same mistake 10,000 times is repeating the mistake 10,000 times. Not being correct just because you could afford massive propaganda.
Time for you to say a big OOPS. Come on, it's not a shame. Everybody's wrong from time to time.
And if you bothered to actually have read the paper, you would find quite an extensive bibliography of other works. Not just one single scientist.
What an extreme bit of ignorance of the science to pretend that there's only one relevant study of all that has been done - how creationist of you.
Making such remarks proves you're dumb, ignorant and obtuse.
Believe it or not, Jaworosky is in the extreme minority in the scientific community (just like those who deny evolution are in the biological community). Those who pick on a single piece of data and claim that it tears down an entire science practice the lowest form of scientific inquiry.
Quick, call the philosophers working on methodology of science and tell them that Karl Popper was a fraud!
Jaworsky actually claims the ridiculous notion that he can prove that the world is getting colder, despite even direct *thermometer* measurements to the contrary and the huge amount of glacial retreat.
Jaworowski said NO SUCH THING. He merely claimed that what he found INVALIDATES THE CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRABLY MADE. You're not thinking precisely. It's like reality is one way, and finding that the claims made of it are based on frauds and distortions. It doesn't even prove that GW is not happening. It merely proves that EVIDENCE YOU CITED is a fraud.
Jaworosky's theories were not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The were published in a magazine run by Lyndon LaRouche. I.e., his claims are a bunch of garbage that wouldn't stand up to peer review, because otherwise he'd have done it.
1. Attacking the credibility, not the criticism. Non-sequitur.
2. As a matter of fact, Jaworowski points out the articles published in NATURE. You obviously have not read the paper.
3. Global Warming gets talked about on NPR (or so I hear), which is even more damning than that total cretin Larouche picking some subject up.
The reality is that even if you don't want to compare CO2 levels to those 100 years ago, you can compare them to CO2 from 200, 400, etc years ago. Modern CO2 is the highest it's been in several hundred thousand years, and it went that way from low CO2 levels in a hun
How about selectively OMITTING THE INCONVENIENT DATA THAT DOESN'T FIT? Here:
u terbacher.htm
"I do not question the extreme nature of the summer of 2003, however, using the Pfister index, this summer would rank 3 only in June and August, the 2003 summer index so equals 1536, 1540 1616 and 1947. The first three hot summers are are notably absent in your reconstruction."
http://members.lycos.nl/errenwijlens/co2/errenvsl
Come on! This is a fraud!
Note: this does NOT mean that global warming isn't happening: it may be happening, it may be not happening. What we do know, though, that such frauds as typically get published do not support the theory!