Not yet. Just too old to have enough patience for the stupidity - which is odd, 'cause I've found even dumber people and have set about seeing if I can motivate them to at least learn something new every day.
On my list... Major issues... To deal with it... I'm considering...
Dude, you're a powerless peon posting on Slashdot. You have no power, you never will. Nobody is ever going to take you seriously, probably because you're insane.
No, I'm not better than you. I'm a powerless peon who will also never be taken seriously or in a position of power.
You are going through one of your cycles again. You're starting to present as though you're a serious economist that is respected and considered. Your posts are starting to border on, of not crossing, the point where you're delusional.
I don't know if you're off your meds or not. If you've been isolating, maybe you should try to get some time in with people, besides at work.
Seriously, you're starting to worry me. The problem with delusions is things come crashing down when you come to your senses and realize you're just a lonely working stiff who lives alone and you've been typing insanities as your magnum opus. You're one small breakdown from no longer writing it on your computer but, instead, write it in fecal matter and stray cat blood.
Seriously, I worry about you sometimes. I've read your posts for like a decade. You go through cycles and you're in the middle of one. If you can really read this, go find someone to be your friend - even if just for a few hours. Get out of your house and stop isolating. Do something besides work, stay in your house, and actively avoiding people when you walk to the grocery store.
Go to the bar. Go to the park. Go talk to people in the park - but not unattended children, not that I worry about you, I just worry about the perception. Seriously, you're isolating again, aren't you?
Fuck, email me if you need to. I'm seriously concerned.
I'd wager you're a poor developer. Why? You'd know nothing on your computer is random, other than by name, if you were a good developer. At best, you have pseudo random and unpredictability. Neither is really random, however. Very few things, if any - depending on your school of thought, are random. The breakage of systemd is, by no means, random.
A good developer would know this. Maybe you'll find Windows to be a bit easier? Then again, judging by your comment, I doubt that you're a developer or that you use Linux. If you are a developer, pleae keep your code proprietary and locked up for in-house use only. We have enough bad code already.
Cramming stuff in a man's ass will massage his prostate, which is pleasurable. Females don't actually have a prostate. So, men are more able to enjoy stuff rammed in their ass than females. It's just basic biology.
I know you're now going to be curious about this. I recommend you try first with a zucchini.
That's pretty horrible, right? I agree, we should do something about that.
Now, there's about 52,000,000 people on welfare. The cost to maintain them is 1,700,000,000,000.
52MM is about 17% of the population, or just about 1/6 people get means tested assistance.
Here's the thing, it would cost ~3,000,000,000,000 to give every man, woman, and child (regardless of their means) $1000 USD per month.
We're already spending 1.7 trillion which is 56% of what it would cost to give everyone a basic income that is greater than they already get with welfare benefits. On top of that, 48% of that 1.7 trillion is currently spent on overhead and administration, including pension payments for the government employees, building upkeep, enforcement, and more.
So, we can eliminate all those expenses and just cut a check for $1,000 and only need 1.3 trillion more dollars - which we can come up with by eliminating social security, removing benefits for non-citizens (you like that idea, don't you), and throwing the F-35 into the dustbin of history. Even better, if we scrap the who,e F-35 budget, we'd have money left over to pay down or debts.
Long term? Sure, raise the rates on long-term capital gains tax from 15 to 20% and remove government funded pensions. That shoud just about cover it, though we can do even better by removing our military from foreign soil, passing the torch on the wars we're involved in, and scaling our military back to the size needed for a defense force. If we do that, we can fund a full eight years of college, medical care, and increase the Section 8 budget more than twentyfold.
And, we can pay off our debts inside of 20 years. Slightly less, about 18.8 years - with interest included.
What do you think? It sure solves that welfare problem, now doesn't it?
You're an electro-chemical gelatinous blob, mostly water and air, configured as an egotistical ambulatory meat bag with delusions of grandeur and a propensity for violence.
I don't actually have a point, I just really wanted to write that sentence. Your post made my brain come up with that. Thanks?
Women with decency and self respect are not the fun ones. No, you want a chick that goes ass to mouth and then licks your nuts when you paint her face and ruin her makeup.
Sometime children are murderers. It happens. Would you call that normal?
Keep in mind, I don't mind transfolk at all. It's not normal. It's acceptable, it's not normal. There's nothing wrong with teaching civility, but let's base it on the truth.
Labor costs never make it to the credit side of the final tax accounting. I don't know what AC is talking about. Labor is an expense. Taxes are after expenses.
"... on this scale." Yes, I'm thinking industrial. The smaller ones are pretty much useless for whole house power. Residential wind turbines don't really make a whole lot of sense for most people, certainly not in the tropics.
With all their scandals, with them hemorrhaging (that's surprisingly more difficult to spell than it should be) cash, and with their impending lawsuits and maybe even criminal charges - who the fuck is gonna buy into their IPO? Maybe the banks are smarter than I am, I'll grant that easily. But, I just can't see myself loaning them money.
Their revenue is pretty impressive, but they've never turned a profit. Compounded with the additional risk factors (like those lawsuits and maybe even criminal liability), I'm pretty sure I'd have better luck loaning money to a homeless meth addict. Hell, I'd probably get a better value for my dollar by loaning it to a homeless meth addict.
Though, I'm pretty sure the banks are smarter than I am - and have access to financial information that I don't have.
As a lark, if they do IPO, I should invest a small amount and then write about how it performs. I got in on Tesla fairly early on, though I invested a larger sum than I'm willing to risk on Uber. With Tesla, I got in at ~24/share. That's done very, very well for me - I still own the shares. However, I wish I'd written more about it. I only made Slashdot posts and, maybe, a couple of posts on Fark.
Hmm... If they IPO, I'll invest $1000 to $5000 and write about the results. It seems like it might be interesting. Well, I'll consider it - that's more accurate. I may change my mind.
By the way, there was a not-too-distant change in the laws that allow a regular citizen to legally fund startups via venture capital, with some caveats of course. I think it might be limited to just $2000/year but it might be higher and it might be worth looking into, assuming the startup bubble doesn't pop. They say that 1:10 turns a profit. It might be an interesting gamble. I'm not sure that I'd call it investing, so I'll stick with calling it gambling.
No links but there were quotes. Just highlight 'em, right click, and select search - I'm pretty sure that works in every modern browser on every modern OS.
And, mostly I'm just giving you shit and trying to encourage you to actually do some research on your own - it's better than just taking news as presented. No harm intended, or anything like that.
I'm not sure why they're doing this. I don't think it's a great conspiracy or anything. It is obviously biased and, presumably, that's intentional.
They took reviews down from verified purchasers - specifically, they took down negative reviews. They said that the people couldn't have read the book in that time frame. Which, if true, would make no sense because they left reviews up from that same time frame but were positive. They purged reviews and, for whatever reason, those reviews seem to all have been negative reviews. (I've found no evidence of them removing positive reviews. If they have done so, nobody is mentioning it.)
I've no idea why the media doesn't cover it. Maybe they just don't want to paint Hillary in a bad light, though I'd assume Fox would want to. I've seen some mentions, but they're not on sites that I'd call reputable or having journalistic integrity. To be fair, I haven't actually read them - I've only seen the headlines and comments at aggregation sites, I didn't actually visit Breitbart (or similar) to check. I don't really count them as reliable news sources.
I doubt it's some giant conspiracy that extends beyond Amazon, the company. I also doubt it's the work of just one person with moderation privileges - but suspect it's something that needed multiple collaborators. It was, after all, a concerted and sustained effort - they deleted the posts over a period of days and deleted some reviewer's posts multiple times.
And, to be clear, I'm absolutely not a fan of Trump. The best thing I can say about Trump is that he's not as bad as I expected him to be. That's not calling him good, it's just pointing out that I expected much worse from him. I had very, very low expectations. I kinda figured he'd have resigned by now, possibly having been thrown out of office in a giant scandal or a temper tantrum.
Either way, I'm not comfortable speculating as to the reason that they'd do this. I mean, yeah, it's obviously got the effect of bolstering the rating but it could be politically motivated or financially motivated. Who knows, maybe it is a giant conspiracy? Or, maybe they pre-ordered a bunch of them and want to ensure they sell them as quickly as possible, so it's purely financially motivated?
I really don't know and I'm not sure that I'm even qualified to speculate. I do know it's dishonest as fuck and makes me distrust Amazon even more than I already did. I'm pretty disappointed but, at this point, not much surprises me.
And sorry for the novella. I'm bored - if you can't tell.
Further models, and collected data, show additional warming - not the same as Mann's hockey stick graph. It matters because it's dishonest and incorrect.
Yes, the planet is heating up and yes, we humans are to blame for a goodly portion of this warming. Those aren't facts in dispute, unless one is insane and deliberately ignoring the vast amounts of data. However, it's not what was predicted and saying it is what was predicted is dishonest and bad science. Good science is saying, "Hey, our models were wrong. The planet is still warming and we're continuing to work on the process." Which, really, is what they appear to be doing.
It is not, on the other hand, what the person I responded to was doing. Given the politics involved, it's important to be open, honest, and communicative. It's important to admit mistakes and to continue to improve the results. What isn't helpful is saying, "Well, it's still warming!" Yes, we know it's still warming - but it's not doing so as projected. There is no hockey stick. It's been a gradual increase in average temperatures across the globe, no spike, no runaway...
It's like the other comment that pointed out the acidification of the oceans was certain because of coral bleaching. That sounds good, until I cite NOAA who tells us that the bleaching has stopped and the coral reefs are starting to repair themselves.
By no means does this make me an AGW skeptic. No, I'm firmly in the AGW is real camp. I've just taken a lot of time to understand the data and follow the research and learn about climate science. I've even gone so far as to download the models and the datasets and run them myself. I'm intimately familiar with modeling large datasets - though I did so with traffic, another chaotic system. It was only natural that I learn to do the same with climate.
Anyhow, I'm very much a "believer" in AGW. That's because I've done the work involved to learn about it. It took a great deal of time, over a period of several years, for me to catch up with it as well as I could. It's okay that the hockey stick isn't real - just because it isn't real doesn't mean that AGW isn't real. It sure as hell doesn't mean that AGW isn't a problem. No, AGW is both real and a problem - and one that we should address, for many reasons. It's okay to admit past models were wrong.
The models have been incorrect, time and time again. They have consistently predicted more warming than has occurred. That's okay - that doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming up. It just means we're still learning. It just means that further refinement is needed. Modeling is extremely difficult to do with great predictive accuracy. Modeling is not easy. It's difficult to the point where it becomes almost an art form to get it right.
Please, see the linked image. And, remember, it's okay - it doesn't mean that the planet is not warming, nor does it mean that the theory behind AGW isn't sound. AGW is real and climate science is difficult. Prediction is very, very difficult - and that's okay.
What we need is honesty and openness. What we need is saying, "Yeah, we fucked that up. We're still learning and we're getting better all the time." Yet, it seems people aren't able to do this - as is evidenced by this very thread. Fortunately, as linked elsewhere, the scientists are doing exactly that. I linked to a recent study that showed them admitting their predictions aren't very accurate. This doesn't cast doubt on AGW. It just shows that we're not as good at predictions as many have been led to believe.
The GPP+N post stated that the hockey stick was invalid. The response was that it wasn't. I've demonstrated that it is invalid. I've linked to the research and done my best to explain why it's okay and why the other user is right - in that specific claim. I've also incidentally needed to cite th
Absolutely, I agree with everything you said. My contention was mostly that it took a mere four hours to create music.
Here, I'll show off.;-) As stated, I'm a trained classical guitarist. However, nobody pays for a classical guitarist. So, I learned to play rock. Which is how you end up with something like this:
Yeah... That's pure unadulterated ego. I'm pretty sure it's note-perfect. I am a bit fond of Malmsteen. That's played on a Malmsteen edition with the scalloped frets. Gotta tell you, that took longer than four hours to make. I'd guess I had a hundred hours just in learning it. It's an exercise in ego, really.
Read the reviews. Another poster above quoted some of them, verbatim, for every situation imaginable. If you'd expanded the thread and highlighted just one of those quotes and searched, you'd have been able to verify they're telling the truth.
Yeah, it required some effort - highlighting their quote and clicking search. That's exactly how I found it. Note the very first review:
That's a verified purchase. As it's a Kindle edition, you can even find reviews from verified purchasers of the hardcover edition. If you say it's a timing issue, that they couldn't have read the book in that amount of time, you can find positive reviews left in the same time period that were left up and not deleted.
It's bullshit and dishonest. You can at least try to be honest with me. You didn't even try to search for it. You can expand the thread (the top post in this thread) and read this, and the citations - and those are only a few examples. So, you either didn't search or didn't expand the thread, or maybe both? It literally only requires highlighting the text and clicking search. You can just go right to the site and see the myriad bits of proof that are offered. You didn't even have to search. They are (were?) deleting reviews from verified purchasers.
I suppose you could believe it's all just a giant conspiracy and all these disparate users have come together to make the same claims. I believe some of them even have screenshots, though I suppose you may wish to believe they fabricated those. It's up to you, I guess. But, yeah, it's not really hard to discover.
As the other poster put it, you can believe the reports or you can believe your own lying eyes. (That was sarcasm on their part - meaning, yeah, you can actually go to the site and see all the evidence. No journalists required.)
Yes, yes it has. Read your link. Your own link says that they revised the results but that AGW is still occurring - no shit, that's not really disputed except by people who don't pay attention to the science. Nobody (sane) is denying that the Earth is warming. However, it's not spiking like it was in their original predictions. In fact, warming has been less than the models predicted. It's not a hockey stick, but a gradual warming.
That you didn't even accept that it was debunked is the point of my post. We all know the globe is continuing to warm. That it was bad science, bad journalism, and isn't actively decried by those who claim to be knowledgeable is problematic. It should be called out, debased, and insulted. Doing so doesn't mean the climate isn't changing, it means you're standing up for good science and failing to acknowledge it does more harm than good.
People like to post a meme that says, "What if global warming wasn't real and we just cleaned up the planet by accident?"
Well, you know what? If bad science is being published, repeated, and not decried then you damage the reputation of science as a whole. In our current environment, where we need to hold rallies to support belief in science, that's distinctly not a good thing. This is how you get people continually denying global climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
Not yet. Just too old to have enough patience for the stupidity - which is odd, 'cause I've found even dumber people and have set about seeing if I can motivate them to at least learn something new every day.
It's pretty futile, but it amuses me.
"Anyone here" ... ?
Some of us still stop by and lurk.
You'd be more legible if you just wrote in your native language and let us use Google Translate.
Seriously, that gibberish does nobody any good. If your browser shows red squiggly lines, it's probably not lying to you.
On my list... Major issues... To deal with it... I'm considering...
Dude, you're a powerless peon posting on Slashdot. You have no power, you never will. Nobody is ever going to take you seriously, probably because you're insane.
No, I'm not better than you. I'm a powerless peon who will also never be taken seriously or in a position of power.
You are going through one of your cycles again. You're starting to present as though you're a serious economist that is respected and considered. Your posts are starting to border on, of not crossing, the point where you're delusional.
I don't know if you're off your meds or not. If you've been isolating, maybe you should try to get some time in with people, besides at work.
Seriously, you're starting to worry me. The problem with delusions is things come crashing down when you come to your senses and realize you're just a lonely working stiff who lives alone and you've been typing insanities as your magnum opus. You're one small breakdown from no longer writing it on your computer but, instead, write it in fecal matter and stray cat blood.
Seriously, I worry about you sometimes. I've read your posts for like a decade. You go through cycles and you're in the middle of one. If you can really read this, go find someone to be your friend - even if just for a few hours. Get out of your house and stop isolating. Do something besides work, stay in your house, and actively avoiding people when you walk to the grocery store.
Go to the bar. Go to the park. Go talk to people in the park - but not unattended children, not that I worry about you, I just worry about the perception. Seriously, you're isolating again, aren't you?
Fuck, email me if you need to. I'm seriously concerned.
I'd wager you're a poor developer. Why? You'd know nothing on your computer is random, other than by name, if you were a good developer. At best, you have pseudo random and unpredictability. Neither is really random, however. Very few things, if any - depending on your school of thought, are random. The breakage of systemd is, by no means, random.
A good developer would know this. Maybe you'll find Windows to be a bit easier? Then again, judging by your comment, I doubt that you're a developer or that you use Linux. If you are a developer, pleae keep your code proprietary and locked up for in-house use only. We have enough bad code already.
Cramming stuff in a man's ass will massage his prostate, which is pleasurable. Females don't actually have a prostate. So, men are more able to enjoy stuff rammed in their ass than females. It's just basic biology.
I know you're now going to be curious about this. I recommend you try first with a zucchini.
That's pretty horrible, right? I agree, we should do something about that.
Now, there's about 52,000,000 people on welfare. The cost to maintain them is 1,700,000,000,000.
52MM is about 17% of the population, or just about 1/6 people get means tested assistance.
Here's the thing, it would cost ~3,000,000,000,000 to give every man, woman, and child (regardless of their means) $1000 USD per month.
We're already spending 1.7 trillion which is 56% of what it would cost to give everyone a basic income that is greater than they already get with welfare benefits. On top of that, 48% of that 1.7 trillion is currently spent on overhead and administration, including pension payments for the government employees, building upkeep, enforcement, and more.
So, we can eliminate all those expenses and just cut a check for $1,000 and only need 1.3 trillion more dollars - which we can come up with by eliminating social security, removing benefits for non-citizens (you like that idea, don't you), and throwing the F-35 into the dustbin of history. Even better, if we scrap the who,e F-35 budget, we'd have money left over to pay down or debts.
Long term? Sure, raise the rates on long-term capital gains tax from 15 to 20% and remove government funded pensions. That shoud just about cover it, though we can do even better by removing our military from foreign soil, passing the torch on the wars we're involved in, and scaling our military back to the size needed for a defense force. If we do that, we can fund a full eight years of college, medical care, and increase the Section 8 budget more than twentyfold.
And, we can pay off our debts inside of 20 years. Slightly less, about 18.8 years - with interest included.
What do you think? It sure solves that welfare problem, now doesn't it?
You're an electro-chemical gelatinous blob, mostly water and air, configured as an egotistical ambulatory meat bag with delusions of grandeur and a propensity for violence.
I don't actually have a point, I just really wanted to write that sentence. Your post made my brain come up with that. Thanks?
Women with decency and self respect are not the fun ones. No, you want a chick that goes ass to mouth and then licks your nuts when you paint her face and ruin her makeup.
Don't be dumb.
Sometime children are murderers. It happens. Would you call that normal?
Keep in mind, I don't mind transfolk at all. It's not normal. It's acceptable, it's not normal. There's nothing wrong with teaching civility, but let's base it on the truth.
Labor costs never make it to the credit side of the final tax accounting. I don't know what AC is talking about. Labor is an expense. Taxes are after expenses.
LOL Check your inbox, by the way. It's raining so I've not yet gone out to the blueberry fields.
"... on this scale." Yes, I'm thinking industrial. The smaller ones are pretty much useless for whole house power. Residential wind turbines don't really make a whole lot of sense for most people, certainly not in the tropics.
With all their scandals, with them hemorrhaging (that's surprisingly more difficult to spell than it should be) cash, and with their impending lawsuits and maybe even criminal charges - who the fuck is gonna buy into their IPO? Maybe the banks are smarter than I am, I'll grant that easily. But, I just can't see myself loaning them money.
Their revenue is pretty impressive, but they've never turned a profit. Compounded with the additional risk factors (like those lawsuits and maybe even criminal liability), I'm pretty sure I'd have better luck loaning money to a homeless meth addict. Hell, I'd probably get a better value for my dollar by loaning it to a homeless meth addict.
Though, I'm pretty sure the banks are smarter than I am - and have access to financial information that I don't have.
As a lark, if they do IPO, I should invest a small amount and then write about how it performs. I got in on Tesla fairly early on, though I invested a larger sum than I'm willing to risk on Uber. With Tesla, I got in at ~24/share. That's done very, very well for me - I still own the shares. However, I wish I'd written more about it. I only made Slashdot posts and, maybe, a couple of posts on Fark.
Hmm... If they IPO, I'll invest $1000 to $5000 and write about the results. It seems like it might be interesting. Well, I'll consider it - that's more accurate. I may change my mind.
By the way, there was a not-too-distant change in the laws that allow a regular citizen to legally fund startups via venture capital, with some caveats of course. I think it might be limited to just $2000/year but it might be higher and it might be worth looking into, assuming the startup bubble doesn't pop. They say that 1:10 turns a profit. It might be an interesting gamble. I'm not sure that I'd call it investing, so I'll stick with calling it gambling.
First you get the money, then you get the girls!
No links but there were quotes. Just highlight 'em, right click, and select search - I'm pretty sure that works in every modern browser on every modern OS.
And, mostly I'm just giving you shit and trying to encourage you to actually do some research on your own - it's better than just taking news as presented. No harm intended, or anything like that.
I'm not sure why they're doing this. I don't think it's a great conspiracy or anything. It is obviously biased and, presumably, that's intentional.
They took reviews down from verified purchasers - specifically, they took down negative reviews. They said that the people couldn't have read the book in that time frame. Which, if true, would make no sense because they left reviews up from that same time frame but were positive. They purged reviews and, for whatever reason, those reviews seem to all have been negative reviews. (I've found no evidence of them removing positive reviews. If they have done so, nobody is mentioning it.)
I've no idea why the media doesn't cover it. Maybe they just don't want to paint Hillary in a bad light, though I'd assume Fox would want to. I've seen some mentions, but they're not on sites that I'd call reputable or having journalistic integrity. To be fair, I haven't actually read them - I've only seen the headlines and comments at aggregation sites, I didn't actually visit Breitbart (or similar) to check. I don't really count them as reliable news sources.
I doubt it's some giant conspiracy that extends beyond Amazon, the company. I also doubt it's the work of just one person with moderation privileges - but suspect it's something that needed multiple collaborators. It was, after all, a concerted and sustained effort - they deleted the posts over a period of days and deleted some reviewer's posts multiple times.
And, to be clear, I'm absolutely not a fan of Trump. The best thing I can say about Trump is that he's not as bad as I expected him to be. That's not calling him good, it's just pointing out that I expected much worse from him. I had very, very low expectations. I kinda figured he'd have resigned by now, possibly having been thrown out of office in a giant scandal or a temper tantrum.
Either way, I'm not comfortable speculating as to the reason that they'd do this. I mean, yeah, it's obviously got the effect of bolstering the rating but it could be politically motivated or financially motivated. Who knows, maybe it is a giant conspiracy? Or, maybe they pre-ordered a bunch of them and want to ensure they sell them as quickly as possible, so it's purely financially motivated?
I really don't know and I'm not sure that I'm even qualified to speculate. I do know it's dishonest as fuck and makes me distrust Amazon even more than I already did. I'm pretty disappointed but, at this point, not much surprises me.
And sorry for the novella. I'm bored - if you can't tell.
Further models, and collected data, show additional warming - not the same as Mann's hockey stick graph. It matters because it's dishonest and incorrect.
Yes, the planet is heating up and yes, we humans are to blame for a goodly portion of this warming. Those aren't facts in dispute, unless one is insane and deliberately ignoring the vast amounts of data. However, it's not what was predicted and saying it is what was predicted is dishonest and bad science. Good science is saying, "Hey, our models were wrong. The planet is still warming and we're continuing to work on the process." Which, really, is what they appear to be doing.
It is not, on the other hand, what the person I responded to was doing. Given the politics involved, it's important to be open, honest, and communicative. It's important to admit mistakes and to continue to improve the results. What isn't helpful is saying, "Well, it's still warming!" Yes, we know it's still warming - but it's not doing so as projected. There is no hockey stick. It's been a gradual increase in average temperatures across the globe, no spike, no runaway...
It's like the other comment that pointed out the acidification of the oceans was certain because of coral bleaching. That sounds good, until I cite NOAA who tells us that the bleaching has stopped and the coral reefs are starting to repair themselves.
By no means does this make me an AGW skeptic. No, I'm firmly in the AGW is real camp. I've just taken a lot of time to understand the data and follow the research and learn about climate science. I've even gone so far as to download the models and the datasets and run them myself. I'm intimately familiar with modeling large datasets - though I did so with traffic, another chaotic system. It was only natural that I learn to do the same with climate.
Anyhow, I'm very much a "believer" in AGW. That's because I've done the work involved to learn about it. It took a great deal of time, over a period of several years, for me to catch up with it as well as I could. It's okay that the hockey stick isn't real - just because it isn't real doesn't mean that AGW isn't real. It sure as hell doesn't mean that AGW isn't a problem. No, AGW is both real and a problem - and one that we should address, for many reasons. It's okay to admit past models were wrong.
Here, I encourage you to view this image:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
The models have been incorrect, time and time again. They have consistently predicted more warming than has occurred. That's okay - that doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming up. It just means we're still learning. It just means that further refinement is needed. Modeling is extremely difficult to do with great predictive accuracy. Modeling is not easy. It's difficult to the point where it becomes almost an art form to get it right.
Please, see the linked image. And, remember, it's okay - it doesn't mean that the planet is not warming, nor does it mean that the theory behind AGW isn't sound. AGW is real and climate science is difficult. Prediction is very, very difficult - and that's okay.
What we need is honesty and openness. What we need is saying, "Yeah, we fucked that up. We're still learning and we're getting better all the time." Yet, it seems people aren't able to do this - as is evidenced by this very thread. Fortunately, as linked elsewhere, the scientists are doing exactly that. I linked to a recent study that showed them admitting their predictions aren't very accurate. This doesn't cast doubt on AGW. It just shows that we're not as good at predictions as many have been led to believe.
The GPP+N post stated that the hockey stick was invalid. The response was that it wasn't. I've demonstrated that it is invalid. I've linked to the research and done my best to explain why it's okay and why the other user is right - in that specific claim. I've also incidentally needed to cite th
Oh, just adding to the list of dishonest marketing. Nothing more than that.
Evil. I like it.
Absolutely, I agree with everything you said. My contention was mostly that it took a mere four hours to create music.
Here, I'll show off. ;-) As stated, I'm a trained classical guitarist. However, nobody pays for a classical guitarist. So, I learned to play rock. Which is how you end up with something like this:
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0j5qxFp...
Yeah... That's pure unadulterated ego. I'm pretty sure it's note-perfect. I am a bit fond of Malmsteen. That's played on a Malmsteen edition with the scalloped frets. Gotta tell you, that took longer than four hours to make. I'd guess I had a hundred hours just in learning it. It's an exercise in ego, really.
Click on this link:
https://www.amazon.com/What-Ha...
Read the reviews. Another poster above quoted some of them, verbatim, for every situation imaginable. If you'd expanded the thread and highlighted just one of those quotes and searched, you'd have been able to verify they're telling the truth.
Yeah, it required some effort - highlighting their quote and clicking search. That's exactly how I found it. Note the very first review:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/cust...
That's a verified purchase. As it's a Kindle edition, you can even find reviews from verified purchasers of the hardcover edition. If you say it's a timing issue, that they couldn't have read the book in that amount of time, you can find positive reviews left in the same time period that were left up and not deleted.
It's bullshit and dishonest. You can at least try to be honest with me. You didn't even try to search for it. You can expand the thread (the top post in this thread) and read this, and the citations - and those are only a few examples. So, you either didn't search or didn't expand the thread, or maybe both? It literally only requires highlighting the text and clicking search. You can just go right to the site and see the myriad bits of proof that are offered. You didn't even have to search. They are (were?) deleting reviews from verified purchasers.
I suppose you could believe it's all just a giant conspiracy and all these disparate users have come together to make the same claims. I believe some of them even have screenshots, though I suppose you may wish to believe they fabricated those. It's up to you, I guess. But, yeah, it's not really hard to discover.
As the other poster put it, you can believe the reports or you can believe your own lying eyes. (That was sarcasm on their part - meaning, yeah, you can actually go to the site and see all the evidence. No journalists required.)
I appreciate your attempt to help but no...
http://www.noaa.gov/media-rele...
Note: I've made it a point to provide clear and unbiased (as close as possible) citations to respond to your posts.
The planet is warming, this is not in doubt. However, alarmist antics aren't helpful, and are less helpful when they're easily debunked.
Yes, yes it has. Read your link. Your own link says that they revised the results but that AGW is still occurring - no shit, that's not really disputed except by people who don't pay attention to the science. Nobody (sane) is denying that the Earth is warming. However, it's not spiking like it was in their original predictions. In fact, warming has been less than the models predicted. It's not a hockey stick, but a gradual warming.
Citation:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...
Distilled version for the regular people:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The data doesn't match the models, warming is less than predicted. Nobody (sane) is denying that the planet is warming or that CO2 is a primary cause.
That you didn't even accept that it was debunked is the point of my post. We all know the globe is continuing to warm. That it was bad science, bad journalism, and isn't actively decried by those who claim to be knowledgeable is problematic. It should be called out, debased, and insulted. Doing so doesn't mean the climate isn't changing, it means you're standing up for good science and failing to acknowledge it does more harm than good.
People like to post a meme that says, "What if global warming wasn't real and we just cleaned up the planet by accident?"
Well, you know what? If bad science is being published, repeated, and not decried then you damage the reputation of science as a whole. In our current environment, where we need to hold rallies to support belief in science, that's distinctly not a good thing. This is how you get people continually denying global climate change.
Today's your lucky day! I was just reading a thread about this very problem.
https://news.ycombinator.com/i...